Intelligent Design Plants

Researchers say they have a “precise estimate” for the time of origin of photosynthesis

Spread the love

But how is half a billion years a “precise estimate”?:

Now, MIT scientists have a precise estimate for when cyanobacteria, and oxygenic photosynthesis, first originated. Their results were published on September 29, 2021, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

They developed a new gene-analyzing technique that shows that all the species of cyanobacteria living today can be traced back to a common ancestor that evolved around 2.9 billion years ago. They also found that the ancestors of cyanobacteria branched off from other bacteria around 3.4 billion years ago, with oxygenic photosynthesis likely evolving during the intervening half-billion years, during the Archean Eon.

Jennifer Chu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “MIT Scientists Zero In on the Origins of Earth’s “Single Most Important Evolutionary Innovation”” at SciTechDaily (September 30, 2021)

One maven points out that the only thing the researchers actually did was estimate the assumed timing of the origin of photosynthesis via molecular clock techniques.

The really remarkable thing is that, if they are right, photosynthesis, despite its complexity, began in the first billion years that there was any kind of life.

Botanist Margaret Helder writes to comment “The point to reflect on is what all those heterotrophs did for food prior to the appearance of the autotrophs. Any organic molecules in the environment would be quickly digested if there were only organisms around with no capacity to reduce carbon.”

Hmmm. Were some of them metabolizing compounds and elements directly?

The paper is open access.

14 Replies to “Researchers say they have a “precise estimate” for the time of origin of photosynthesis

  1. 1
    zweston says:

    In the words of Sergeant Shultz “I gave them a definite, maybe!”

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    I was hoping the “precise estimate” would give the time of day as “just after dawn”.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “the only thing the researchers actually did was estimate the assumed timing of the origin of photosynthesis via molecular clock techniques.”

    And ‘molecular clock techniques’ are notoriously unreliable.

    As population geneticist David Reich of Harvard honestly admitted, “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” ,,, “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”

    Evolution Makes No Sense on This Molecular Clock Problem – Cornelius Hunter – June 15, 2015
    Excerpt: The theory-laden measurements are based on evolutionary theory. The theory-neutral measurements do not entail evolutionary thinking. In other words, making measurements based on evolutionary theory leads to problems. The resulting DNA mutation rates are not even close to what we can measure more directly, free from theoretical assumptions.
    As is often the case, these discrepancies between the evidence and the theory leave evolutionists unsure and of differing opinions. As one evolutionist admitted:
    “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us, It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-this.html

    The main flaw in Darwinists using molecular clocks to try to prove common ancestry is that the ‘molecular clocks’ themselves are not based on any natural law, and/or physical constant, but are instead, more or less, directly based on the unproven assumption of common ancestry itself.

    Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics – Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca
    Abstract: Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”.. For historians and philosophers of science the questions that arise are how belief in the infallibility of molecular data for reconstructing evolutionary relationships emerged, and how this belief became so central …
    https://sites.pitt.edu/~jhs/articles/Schwartz&Maresca_Mol_clocks.pdf

    In short, Darwinists using molecular clocks to prove common ancestry turns out to be a circular argument for Darwinists.

    i.e. Since Molecular clocks are not based on any natural law, and/or physical constant, but are instead, more or less, based on the Darwinian assumption of common ancestry itself, then this of course means that ‘molecular clocks’ are ripe for abuse by Darwinists in order to make the molecular data fit into their a-priori assumption of common ancestry. i.e. As far as hard science itself is concerned, “What good is a measurement device if you can stretch it or squeeze it to fit preconceived ideas?”

    Finagling Molecular Clocks to Fit Darwinism – May 27, 2016
    Excerpt: What good is a measurement device if you can stretch it or squeeze it to fit preconceived ideas?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02878.html

    Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070 – Whif
    Excerpt: One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well.,,,
    Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
    But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....oes-0.html

    Thus, whenever you hear Darwinists claiming that molecular clocks have proven this, or have proven that, keep a type grip on your wallet, because the fact of the matter is that you are most likely being had.

    Moreover, when we allow the genetic data to speak for itself, instead of “Finagling Molecular Clocks to Fit Darwinism”, then the genetic data is actually very, very, good at falsifying the Darwinian assumption of common ancestry and validating the design model:

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
    Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model.
    Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree.
    Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process.
    Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
    Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
    Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
    The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
    Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
    Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
    By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
    10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, physical evidence itself contradicts what they claim to have proven via their very questionable “molecular clock technique”.

    In short, there are several lines of physical evidence that contradict their finding and suggest that oxygenic photosynthesis has been present on earth since life was first created on earth.

    U-rich Archaean sea-£oor sediments from Greenland – indications of > 3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis – 2003
    Minik T. Rosing, Robert Frei
    Excerpt conclusion: The high biomass productivity of planktonic organisms, the strongly 13C-depleted carbon isotopic signature and the evidence for the presence of oxidized aquatic environments all suggest that oxygenic photosynthesis had developed before 3700 Ma.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v.....8;type=pdf

    When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve?
    Roger Buick – :09 May 2008
    Abstract
    The atmosphere has apparently been oxygenated since the ‘Great Oxidation Event’ ca 2.4?Ga ago, but when the photosynthetic oxygen production began is debatable. However, geological and geochemical evidence from older sedimentary rocks indicates that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before this oxygenation event. Fluid-inclusion oils in ca 2.45?Ga sandstones contain hydrocarbon biomarkers evidently sourced from similarly ancient kerogen, preserved without subsequent contamination, and derived from organisms producing and requiring molecular oxygen. Mo and Re abundances and sulphur isotope systematics of slightly older (2.5?Ga) kerogenous shales record a transient pulse of atmospheric oxygen. As early as ca 2.7?Ga, stromatolites and biomarkers from evaporative lake sediments deficient in exogenous reducing power strongly imply that oxygen-producing cyanobacteria had already evolved. Even at ca 3.2?Ga, thick and widespread kerogenous shales are consistent with aerobic photoautrophic marine plankton, and U–Pb data from ca 3.8?Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported.
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2008.0041

    Early Evolution of Photosynthesis – Robert E. Blankenship – October 2010
    Excerpt: A wealth of evidence indicates that photosynthesis is an ancient process that originated not long after the origin of life,,,
    The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2949000/

    Breathing new life into Earth: New research shows evidence of early oxygen on our planet – August 2011
    Excerpt: Waldbauer and Summons surmise that oxygen production and consumption may have occurred in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years before the atmosphere saw even a trace of the gas. They say that in all likelihood, cyanobacteria, blue-green algae living at the ocean surface, evolved the ability to produce O2 via sunlight in a process known as oxygenic photosynthesis. But instead of building up in the oceans and then seeping into the atmosphere, O2 may have been rapidly consumed by early aerobic organisms. Large oceanic and atmospheric sinks, such as iron and sulfide spewing out of subsea volcanoes, likely consumed whatever O2 was left over.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....xygen.html

    Banded iron formation
    Excerpt: Banded iron formations are thought to have formed in sea water as the result of oxygen production by photosynthetic cyanobacteria. The oxygen combined with dissolved iron in Earth’s oceans to form insoluble iron oxides, which precipitated out, forming a thin layer on the ocean floor. Each band is similar to a varve, resulting from cyclic variations in oxygen production.
    Some of the Earth’s oldest rock formations, which formed about 3,700 million years ago (Ma), are associated with banded iron formations. They were first discovered in northern Michigan in 1844. Banded iron formations account for more than 60% of global iron reserves and provide most of the iron ore presently mined. Most formations can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, and the United States.
    https://tok.fandom.com/wiki/Banded_iron_formation

    Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria – Apr. 23, 2013
    Excerpt: The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old. ,,,
    This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth’s oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....110750.htm

    Biological carbon precursor to diagenetic siderite with spherical structures in iron formations (2013)
    Conclusion Excerpt: Our study points to diverse microbial communities in the Archaean oceans with the shallow-water environments populated by cyanobacterial communities, whereas photoferrotrophs and microaerophilic chemolithoautotrophs were abundant in the deep-water photic zone.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2770

    Ancient fossil microorganisms,,, : Scientists analyze specimens from 3.465 billion years ago – December 18, 2017
    Excerpt: “By 3.465 billion years ago, life was already diverse on Earth; that’s clear — primitive photosynthesizers, methane producers, methane users,” said J. William Schopf, a professor of paleobiology in the UCLA College, and the study’s lead author. “These are the first data that show the very diverse organisms at that time in Earth’s history, and our previous research has shown that there were sulfur users 3.4 billion years ago as well.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171218154925.htm

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, in direct contradiction to Darwinian presuppositions, the basic chemistry of these ancient microbial communities that inhabit stromatolites has remained remarkably unchanged throughout its long, extended, history on earth.

    3.5 billion-year-old ecosystem found – November 12, 2013
    Excerpt: “Mound-like deposits created by ancient bacteria, called stromatolites, and microfossils of bacteria have previously been discovered in this region. However, a phenomenon called microbially induced sedimentary structures, or MISS, had not previously been seen in rocks of this great age.”
    MISS were created by microbial mats as the microbial communities responded to changes in physical sediment dynamics, Professor Wacey said.
    “A common example would be the binding together of sediment grains by microbes to prevent their erosion by water currents,” he said. “The significance of MISS is that they not only demonstrate the presence of life, but also the presence of whole microbial ecosystems that could co-ordinate with one another to respond to changes in their environment.”,,,
    The team described the various MISS from the ancient coastal flats preserved in the Dresser Formation and found close similarities in both form and preservation style to MISS in younger rocks.
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au.....25003.html

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    Moreover, besides the long term stability of these diverse microbial communities directly contradicting Darwinian presuppositions, the presence of these diverse microbial communities, ‘as life was beginning on Earth’, makes the Origin of Life problem, (as intractable as that problem is for Darwinists), exponentially worse for Darwinists.

    These following sites have illustrations that show some of the interdependent biogeochemical complexity that is involved in these ancient ‘Microbial Mats’ ,,,

    Microbial mat ecosystems: Structure types, functional diversity, and biotechnological application – 2018 –
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0717345817300738
    Figure 2: Microbial Mat Ecology – 2018
    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0717345817300738-gr2.jpg

    The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – 2008
    Figure 2: Biologically mediated cycles for hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and iron
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom-Fenchel/publication/5353568/figure/fig2/AS:667608508551188@1536181680770/Photosynthesis.png

    Please note that if even one major type of bacteria group did not exist in these ancient and diverse microbial communities, in the complex environmental cycle of biogeochemical interdependence that was illustrated on the preceding sites, then all of the other interdependent bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for Darwinists that much worse. i.e. Now not only do Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once, but now they must also explain how all these different types bacteria, in this irreducibly complex biogeochemical web, ‘miraculously’, arose in time for the other bacteria to continue to survive for any extended period of time.

    Moreover, besides these ancient and diverse microbial communities remaining unchanged in their basic chemistry throughout their long, extended, history on earth, and in further direct contradiction to Darwinian presuppositions, it is also found that the oldest fossil evidence for bacteria that we have, ‘surprisingly’ revealed that the ancient bacteria “looked exactly like modern species,” and the “similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,”

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Moreover, this ‘extreme’ similarity is also found to be present at the molecular level too.
    To the disbelieving shock of Darwinists, “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes: Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; – 2002
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of molecular change, (far less change than was expected under Darwinism), that they insisted the stunning similarity had to be due to modern contamination in Vreeland’s experiment. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by finding some ancient DNA sequences that were completely unique and therefore could not have possibly been the result of modern contamination:

    World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique”,,,
    – per news discovery

    And so it goes, Darwinists are contradicted, and/or falsified, by the empirical evidence time and time again, but alas, they never accept the fact that theory has been falsified by the empirical evidence.

    Thus, whatever Darwinists may be doing, they are CERTAINLY NOT doing science!

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

  6. 6
    groovamos says:

    Thus, whatever Darwinists may be doing, they are CERTAINLY NOT doing science!

    Oh. I thought Steven Weinberg certainly did science:
    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1979/weinberg/biographical/

    and certainly believed in Darwinian evolution: “Weinberg believes that evolution, if taught properly, will reduce a student’s sense of his or her ‘own special importance.’ ” http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p.....nberg.html

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Groovamos, speaking of Weinberg, you may be interested in this honest confession that Weinberg made to none other than Richard Dawkins himself about the ‘fix’ that Atheists were in:

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video

    Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    Also there is this other honest confession from Weinberg, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and precisely because it undermined his Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    And as Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    Moreover, Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract:This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    So, a little more than 8,000-10,000 years ago, then?

  9. 9
    martin_r says:

    “Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins”

    While the RNA viruses we see today may not date back quite this far, the evidence that some DNA viruses have evolved with their vertebrate hosts over many millions of years (24) makes an equally ancient history for RNA viruses a natural expectation. Yet a very different picture of RNA virus origins is painted if their gene sequences are compared; by using the best estimates for rates of evolutionary change (nucleotide substitution) and assuming an approximate molecular clock (21, 33), it can be inferred that the families of RNA viruses circulating today could only have appeared very recently, probably not more than about 50,000 years ago. Hence, if evolutionary rates are accurate and relatively constant, present-day RNA viruses may have originated more recently than our own species.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC150674/

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    it is funny to see, that all these irreducible complex chemical systems like photosynthesis evolved in the beginning (billions of years ago), and THEN NEVER AGAIN :)))) and no Darwinist is concerned….

  11. 11
    martin_r says:

    there are 3 types of photosynthesis.

    C3, C4, CAM (each of it, crazy complex)

    Darwinists claim, that C3 evolved only once, billions of years ago, …but, the C4 + CAM types, despite biochemically complex, evolved at least 60 times repeatedly (independently).

    60 times !!!! This irreducible complex systems evolved 60 times independently on various lineages !!!
    Who on Earth can buy this non-sense ?

    Moreover, Darwinists claim, that C4 type is more complex than C3 types (the one which evolved only once in deep past)

    Help me decide which claim is more absurd…

  12. 12
    Belfast says:

    As Mark Twain put it, “ “just a million years ago next November”

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Martin_r

    it is funny to see, that all these irreducible complex chemical systems like photosynthesis evolved in the beginning (billions of years ago), and THEN NEVER AGAIN :)))) and no Darwinist is concerned….

    Being a Darwinist does indeed seem to entail a profound lack of curiosity for people who pride themselves on being rational and scientific, (as they take pains to repeatedly remind us)

    “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered. … The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
    – Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini – 2010

    “Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!”
    – Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics – A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

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

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

    “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.”
    – Smith, Wolfgang (1988) – Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    BA77

    The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic

    Excellent !!!

Leave a Reply