Richard Dawkins says eugenics works because he assumes we are just like animals

_{News
February 17, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

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

But we should oppose it on moral grounds, he hastens to add:

In a bizarre Twitter post on Sunday, Dawkins said that the practice of eugenics – an offshoot of social Darwinism – has a scientific logic that would actually work if implemented, arguing that people should oppose it strictly on moral grounds.
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” tweeted Dawkins. “Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
Paul Bols, “Famed Atheist Richard Dawkins Bizarrely Defends Eugenics: ‘Works For Cows, Horses, Pigs,’ But ‘Fight It On Moral Grounds’” at DailyWire

At one fell swoop, Dawkins exposes another frequent weakness of naturalist atheism: direct conflict with facts. Eugenics does not work for humans. Unlike animals, we make personal choices, which could be based on reason and free will or on the apparent lack thereof. And those choices confound the ambitions of others.

Put simply: Beagles beget beagles; that is all beagles can do. So if you want a beagle, you need only go to the source.

By contrast, not only do few geniuses pass on their gifts to any extent but wise and prudent parents often have foolish and imprudent children. Much great literature has featured such “fall of the house of” themes.

Do Dawkins’s remarks have anything to do with Darwin Day (February 12) or Evolution Weekend (grinding onward, with the sheer dullness one would associated with dying liberal churches)?

See also: Darwin Reader: Darwin’s racism

How Jonathan Wells is celebrating Darwin Day. Wells: A biologist wrote years ago that we should celebrate Darwin’s birthday instead, because Lincoln only freed some slaves while Darwin freed our minds. [eek!]

Everyone is bugging us to do something for Darwin Day (today). How about a brief reflection: Darwin is the village atheist’s answer to serious thinking about origins.

and

Evolution Weekend downplays Darwin, morphs into climate concern, muffles racism issue. Remember, anyone can be a racist if all he must say is: My ancestors were gods, yours were gobs of clay. Absent evidence, he might prevail by force of arms and entrench his view. Darwinism led to racial theories with the trappings of science. That matters and it has never been dealt with honestly because dealing with it honestly endangers the basic ideas of Darwinism.

Comments

LOL, Bob O'Hara states,
I don’t believe in ‘unlimited plasticity’.
Yet he believes that some land dwelling creature can evolve into a whale. :) That sure is some kind of 'limited plasticity' that he believes in. :) Bob, you really need to embrace the sheer absurdity of your preferred materialistic theory of Darwinian evolution. Everything in your materialistic theory, at bottom, is just matter in motion. Your materialistic theory simply cannot ground 'permanence of form' of any sort. Shoot, this irresolvable dilemma of 'permanence of form' for reductive materialists, was pointed thousands of years ago by Aristotle and then, later on, further refined by Aquinas.
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt: First, the problem of essences. G. K. Chesterton once quipped that “evolution . . . does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man.” It might appear shocking, but in this one remark the ever-perspicacious Chesterton summarized a serious conflict between classical Christian philosophy and Darwinism. In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Think about it: How is it that we are able to recognize different organisms as belonging to the same group? The Aristotelian provides a good answer: It is because species really exist—not as an abstraction in the sky, but they exist nonetheless. We recognize the squirrel’s form, which it shares with other members of its species, even though the particular matter of each squirrel differs. So each organism, each unified whole, consists of a material and immaterial part (form).,,, One way to see this form-matter dichotomy is as Aristotle’s solution to the ancient tension between change and permanence debated so vigorously in the pre-Socratic era. Heraclitus argued that reality is change. Everything constantly changes—like fire, which never stays the same from moment to moment. Philosophers like Parmenides (and Zeno of “Zeno’s paradoxes” fame) argued exactly the opposite; there is no change. Despite appearances, reality is permanent. How else could we have knowledge? If reality constantly changes, how can we know it? What is to be known? Aristotle solved this dilemma by postulating that while matter is constantly in flux—even now some somatic cells are leaving my body while others arrive—an organism’s form is stable. It is a fixed reality, and for this reason is a steady object of our knowledge. Organisms have an essence that can be grasped intellectually. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, Implications for Bioethics This is not a mere abstract point. This dilemma is playing itself out in contemporary debates in bioethics. With whom are bioethicists like Leon Kass (neo-Aristotelian and former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics) sparring today if not with thoroughgoing Darwinians like Princeton’s Peter Singer, who denies that humans, qua humans, have intrinsic dignity? Singer even calls those who prefer humans to other animals “speciesist,” which in his warped vocabulary is akin to racism.,,, If one must choose between saving an intelligent, fully developed pig or a Down syndrome baby, Singer thinks we should opt for the pig.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
This is not just some minor philosophical dispute, but it plays out today in the real world. Modern day Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no way to demarcate what a species truly is:
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery - July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, One of the great discoveries of evolutionary biology is that the human species is not special or privileged in the grand scheme of things, and that humans have the same origins as all the other animals. This approach just takes the next step. It says that there is no such thing as “the human species” at all. https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
It is highly ironic that Charles Darwin sought to explain the 'origin of species' and yet modern day Darwinists are at a complete loss to define what a species even is, Needless to say, if you cannot even provide a rigid definition of 'species' in your theory that claims to explain the 'origin of species', well then, so much for the claim from Darwinists that Darwinian evolution qualifies as a hard science. Of supplemental note:
“If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no prexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheist is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).” Pastor Joe Boot – quote taken from 13:20 minute mark of the following video: Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo
bornagain77_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Again, Bob’s belief in, basically, ‘unlimited plasticity’
More rubbish. I don't believe in ‘unlimited plasticity’. And you've failed to present any evidence that anyone else does. Why do you persist with falsehoods?Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Yes, Bob, in the real world there is a limit. In the evo world there isn't. But in the evo world you don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. So there is a problem with evo thinking.ET_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Bob, besides presenting a false dilemma, (which is a formal logical fallacy) , is apparently unaware of just how majestic whales actually are: Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to 'deep dive' hunt a giant squid in the murky depths of the ocean
Sperm Whale Vs Giant Squid - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710
Again, Bob's belief in, basically, 'unlimited plasticity' is highlighted by the fact that he falsely believes it is possible for some type of land dwelling creature to evolve into a whale:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o More "Design of Life" Evidence: Whales - Oct. 4, 2015 Excerpt: More About the Male (Whale's) Refrigeration System The system actually works better when the whale swims hard. How can that be, when the testes are located right between the abdominal swimming muscles? It's like trying to keep a refrigerator cold between two furnaces. It works because the blood pumps harder during exercise, allowing more heat to escape into the water through the dorsal fin and tail. The higher volume of cool venous blood then enters the "miraculous web" (Latin rete mirabile, read more here) between the abdominal muscles, where the heat from the arteries is transferred to the cooler veins before entering the testes. It's a marvelous solution: a "counter-current heat exchanger" (CCHE) mechanism. As Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson explain in the film, without both internal testes and the refrigeration mechanism existing simultaneously, natural selection would halt, and whales would have gone extinct. Females, too, have a CCHE to protect the young during pregnancy. Similar CCHE systems are found in other marine mammals such as manatees and seals, providing more unlikely examples of "convergent evolution." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/more_design_of_1100621.html
In the following video, Philip Gingerich, the paleontologist who discovered and reconstructed Rhohocetus, which has been called by evolutionists, 'the most spectacular intermediary fossil in whale evolution', states this about that supposedly "most spectacular intermediary fossil",,,
"Well, I told you we don't have the tail in Rodhocetus. We don't know for sure whether it had a ball vertebrate indicating a (tail) fluke or not. So I speculated (that) it might have had a (tail) fluke.,,, Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms, the arms in other words of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn't have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.,, If you don't have flippers, I don't think you can have a fluke tail and really powered swimming. And so I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluke tail." Philip Gingerich paleontologist - Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed (11:40 minute mark) https://youtu.be/VSmO4nQ717U?t=699
i.e. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults that makes Santa Claus look mild in comparison.bornagain77_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Ah, so ET are you saying that there i a limit to a whale's plasticity? Does this also apply to smaller pinnipeds, which are the same size as some fish?Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Bob:
If ‘unlimited plasticity’ exists, why don’t whales breath with gills?
They can't get enough O2 via gills, Bob.ET_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

ba77 - if you're going to make your argument valid, you're going to have to show how you extrapolate from one transition to unlimited possibilities for transitions. If ‘unlimited plasticity’ exists, why don't whales breath with gills? Why do they still have to come to the surface to breath?Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

^^^^^ Bob at 111 HUH??? What??? You don't believe a land dwelling mammal evolved into a whale? My simple point, which seems to be lost on you, is that If you believe that some land dwelling mammal evolved in a whale, then you yourself believe in, basically, 'unlimited plasticity'. If you do not believe that some type of land dwelling mammal evolved into a whale, then you are not a Darwinist. Its your preferred theory for crying out loud! Own up to it, and quit 'bobbing and weaving'!bornagain77_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
Has anyone claimed that ‘unlimited plasticity’ actually exists?
That is the entire premise of evolutionism, Bob. The diversity of life from some unknown population or populations of prokaryotes IS unlimited plasticity. Or don't you understand the claims being made by evos?ET_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

ba77 - you're meant to say "yes, and here's a link to someone saying that". If you're unable to provide an example, then perhaps accept that the answer could be "no", and don't repeat this claim?Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

LOL
Has anyone claimed that ‘unlimited plasticity’ actually exists?
Asks the man who believes that a land dwelling mammal evolved into a whale! :)
Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
bornagain77_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Thus inbreeding strongly suggests that Darwinists are wrong in their claim that species have basically ‘unlimited plasticity’ to transmutate into brand new species.
There is not a single scientific proof of that alleged ‘unlimited plasticity’ (except in the imagination of darwinists).
Has anyone claimed that ‘unlimited plasticity’ actually exists?Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

@106 Bornagain77:
Thus inbreeding strongly suggests that Darwinists are wrong in their claim that species have basically ‘unlimited plasticity’ to transmutate into brand new species.
There is not a single scientific proof of that alleged 'unlimited plasticity' (except in the imagination of darwinists). Due to their failure to acknowledge reality and its limits, they have turned themselves into the alchemists of our era. What is Alchemy? (Darwinism) Alchemy (darwinism) was/ is based on the belief that there are four basic elements in nature: air (genes), fire (natural selection), water (drift) and earth ("randomness"). Alchemy (darwinism) is an ancient (19th century) practice shrouded in mystery and secrecy. Its practitioners mainly sought (seek) to turn lead (bacteria) into gold (dinosaurs), a quest that has captured the imaginations of people for thousands (150+) of years.Truthfreedom_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

I can see why you would want not to “bring in inbreeding” as a major problem in animal breeding, and try to focus on some minutiae of your field. Inbreeding, and the problems thereof, simply does fit the overall Darwinian narrative that you want to spin.
No, I explained in post 105 why I didn't bring up inbreeding. It's no surprise you just ignored it and continued to make the same false claims.
I can see why you would want not to “bring in inbreeding” as a major problem in animal breeding, and try to focus on some minutiae of your field.
I'm not sure "why animal breeding works" is the minutiae in the filed of animal breeding. Just a wild guess, but I think animal breeders would consider it rather important.Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara, whatever, you've got nothing. As the article I highlighted earlier, (that you disparaged among the posts as me 'barfing out posts'), stated, "Darwinian evolution is a massive extrapolation from selective breeding in animals." The reason why inbreeding is interesting to this whole ID vs. Darwinism debate is because inbreeding highlights the fact that there are fairly strict limits to how far you can push any species in any one direction, via selection, before problems with inbreeding start to become more and more problematic. As the article, that you disparaged, further explained,
Of course animal breeding “works,” up to a point.,,, But there are limits. Dogs can’t be bred to become cats, nor pigeons into bats. There appear to be set limits. Why? Behe has noted the problem that dog-breeding, canine eugenics, is accomplished largely by breaking genes:,,,
Thus inbreeding strongly suggests that Darwinists are wrong in their claim that species have basically 'unlimited plasticity' to transmutate into brand new species. I can see why you would want not to "bring in inbreeding" as a major problem in animal breeding, and try to focus on some minutiae of your field. Inbreeding, and the problems thereof, simply does fit the overall Darwinian narrative that you want to spin. Unfortunately. you not wanting to "bring in inbreeding", also reveals the fact that you have the annoying habit of dodging issues that falsify your Darwinian worldview. It is literally your modus operandi, hence the nickname "Bob and weave" You not wanting to "bring in inbreeding" says far more about the disingenuous nature of your debating style than it does for any lack of knowledge that I may have in the details of your field of expertise. Come to think of it, I'm not too impressed with the disingenuous nature in which you 'torture data until it confesses" in your field of expertise
Bob O'Hara Professor at NTNU I torture data until it confesses. Sometimes I have to resort to Bayesianism https://de.linkedin.com/in/bob-o-hara-93b0a210
Perhaps you should just let the data speak for itself instead of torturing the data to say what you want it to say? Just a suggestion Bob. :)bornagain77_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

ba77 - I didn't want to bring in inbreeding, because I was hoping you'd try to understand what I was explaining. It's not worth getting into inbreeding until you've understood that. For what it's worth, yes breeder are aware of problems with inbreeding, and have been for a long time. And yes, they do take it into account in their breeding (by trying to cross individuals with a low inbreeding coefficient). None of this is a secret, but I appreciate that you're more interested in criticising biologists, and that's much easier if you don't understand what you're criticising.Bob O'H_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara states
I didn’t want to get onto discussing inbreeding until you had understood the basics of animal and plant breeding.
too funny, when I bring up the fact that inbreeding is a major concern for animal breeders and that advances in genetic analysis therefore are not "that much of an improvement over what ranchers have already done in the past.", Bob dodges the issue by saying
I wasn't talking about inbreeding.
Yet when I point out the fact that inbreeding is and has been a major concern, arguanly more so in the genomic era, Bob again dodges and states
"I didn’t want to get onto discussing inbreeding until you had understood the basics of animal and plant breeding."
There you go folks, Darwinian debating skills 101. Heads I win, tails you lose. Oh yeah, lesson number two in Darwinian debating skills 101, don't forget to disparage the intelligence and comments of people that contradict you, as Bob did. That way you never actually have to address the meat of the substance in the comments that falsifies Darwinian evolution.bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

ba77 @ 97 -
LOL, if modern breeding techniques do not protect against inbreeding, via analyzing the genetic robustness and diversity of parental stock,
They do, though.
And according to this following article, you are wrong in your claim that inbreeding is not a major concern in the genetic analysis of parental stack:,
I never claimed that, though. I didn't want to get onto discussing inbreeding until you had understood the basics of animal and plant breeding. Seriously, rather than spend time barfing out posts, use some of that time to educate yourself. Who knows, you might actually learn something interesting.Bob O'H_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

also of note:
If Human Eugenics Wouldn’t Work, Human Evolution Has a Big Problem - February 18, 2020 A Massive Extrapolation In an email, a geneticist friend notes the irony. Darwinian evolution is a massive extrapolation from selective breeding in animals. Of course animal breeding “works,” up to a point. Darwin in the Origin of Species cited the efforts of pigeon fanciers. In a New York Times book review, Dawkins once taunted Michael Behe with the successes of dog-breeding. But there are limits. Dogs can’t be bred to become cats, nor pigeons into bats. There appear to be set limits. Why? Behe has noted the problem that dog-breeding, canine eugenics, is accomplished largely by breaking genes:,,, The extrapolation from dogs or pigeons to macroevolution fails because building genuine biological novelties, not just a Chihuahua as distinct from a poodle, requires more than merely breaking stuff, aka devolution, as Behe has shown in his book Darwin Devolves.,,, ,,, that’s why Dawkins felt compelled to “combat” the idea that eugenics with humans is impossible. For the Darwinist, whether it is seen as a good or a bad thing, it must at least be possible. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/if-human-eugenics-wouldnt-work-human-evolution-has-a-big-problem/
bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Of related note:
I work on human genetics and am honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute. I’m the editor-in chief of a journal which used to be called Annals of Eugenics. I just wanted to say that we now know from the latest research that eugenics simply would not work. I have published hundreds of scientific papers on human genetics including on intellectual disability, mental illness and the predictive ability of genetic. Let’s say that the aim of eugenics is to intervene at a societal level to improve the genetic stock of the population, for example to eliminate undesirable characteristics or to produce average increases in the values of desirable traits. Animals are bred in controlled environments and have short generational times with large numbers of offspring. In these circumstances selective breeding can produce desired changes in a small number of specific traits such as milk yield or racing performance. So why wouldn’t it work in humans? Let me start by saying that there have been tremendous advances on our knowledge on this subject in just the last couple of years and our understanding has changed a lot. My claims are based on results of genetic epidemiological studies of hundreds of thousands of people, such as UK Biobank, and sequencing studies of many thousands of people. These results have emerged recently and many commentators may not fully appreciate them... Read more here https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1229701171721445376.html
bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement of the cell or of an entire organism in general. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Moreover, we now also have empirical evidence from quantum information theory that entropy is a “property of an observer who describes a system.”
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
In other words, some ‘outside observer’ who is outside the space-time of the universe, is now required in order to give us an adequate causal account so as to explain how it is even possible for this immense amount of positional and/or quantum information to somehow be coming into the developing embryo ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method in order to raise the developing embryo to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. (i.e. 2,000 Titanics full of thumb drives!) On top of all that, quantum information is physically conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604
Thus, when one traces out the mystery as to what is actually determining how an organism may be achieving is basic form, one is led, by the empirical evidence itself, inevitably to the existence of a soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our physical bodies. Contrary to how Darwinists may negatively react to this, finding experimental evidence, via quantum information theory and quantum biology, for the actual existence of a soul, a soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our physical bodies, is VERY GOOD NEWS that we rightly ought to greet with a profound sense of joy instead of greeting it with irrational hostility as Darwinists are prone to greet such evidence for the soul with. Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

As to this comment from the preceding article, “they admit that more must be going on.” And indeed, there is much ‘more’ that is going on than meets the eye. As Doug Axe states in the following video, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”
“There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.” Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video https://youtu.be/lgs6J4LqeqI?t=4575
And at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, ‘positional information’ must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into multiple different states during embryological development.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484
The amount of ‘positional information’ that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method is immense. Vastly outstripping, by many orders of magnitude, the amount of sequential information that is contained within DNA itself. First off, it is important to note just how far out of thermodynamic equilibrium life is: The positional information that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order 10 to the 12 bits,,,
Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm
,,, Which is the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. 'In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong - The Creation-evolution Controversy 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
Thus since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small - about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells. https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html
And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells in the average human body,
Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body - 2016 Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg "reference man" to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533
Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of positional information that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method. As the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.
In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/
Moreover, we now have evidence that ‘quantum information’ is ubiquitous within molecular biology. As the title of the following paper states, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
As well, at 24:00 minute mark of the following video Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
“What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.” Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, ““Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara at 96
ba77 @ 93 – :Moreover, my main point all along with Bob has been that this is still a far cry from proving that genotypes can generate phenotypes. Bob: Ah, so you were arguing something totally different! FWIW, there is a lot of work on this, start with Mendel.
Okie Dokie, We will start with Mendel. For decades Mendel was persona non gratis for Darwinists,
Scientific Consensus? You've Got to Be Kidding, Right? - May 4, 2015 Excerpt: last week defending that reliability of “scientific consensus,” theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wrote: "Evolution was the consensus position that led to the discovery of genetics…" What a hoot! The truth is that Gregor Mendel, (an Augustinian friar), discovered genetics with no help from evolution. Mendel published his theory about the same time that Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, but Mendel did not accept Darwin’s theory, and Darwin’s followers ignored Mendel’s theory for decades. Here’s an excerpt from a chapter titled “You’d Think Darwin Invented the Internet” in Jonathan Wells’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design: Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel found Darwin’s theory unpersuasive. The data he collected led him to conclude that heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next. Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false. Mendel’s theory of stable factors contradicted Darwin’s theory of changeable gemmules. Thus, although Mendel’s work was published in 1866, Darwinists totally ignored it for more than three decades. William Bateson, one of the scientists who “rediscovered” Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, wrote that the cause for this lack of interest was “unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines… The question, it was imagined, had been answered and the debate ended.” Even after 1900, Darwinists had little use for Mendel’s theory. By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics. Darwinists abandoned pangenesis and subsumed Mendelism in a “neo-Darwinian synthesis” that still dominates evolutionary biology. In 1999, Darwinist Bruce Alberts claimed that Darwinism is “at the core of genetics.” Yet Mendel had no need for Darwin’s hypothesis. How can Darwinism, which contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and resisted it for half a century, now be at its core? It is Darwinism that needs genetics, not genetics that needs Darwinism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/scientific_cons095761.html
So much for Mendel being a friend of Darwinists. Moreover although Darwinists “subsumed Mendelism in a “neo-Darwinian synthesis”, and assumed that random mutations to ‘discrete genes’ could somehow provide the source for variability that Darwinists needed in order to make their theory of the ‘unlimited plasticity of species’ viable, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists have never shown that it is possible, via random mutations, to gradually change change one ‘discrete’ gene into a brand new gene, nor have they shown that it is possible to change one protein into a brand new protein. Thus Darwinists have never shown that it is possible to gradually change one species into a brand new species,
Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010 Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger Argue that Design Best Explains New Biological Information - Casey Luskin August 26, 2013 Excerpt: Axe and Gauger observe that “The most widely accepted explanation for the origin of new enzymes is gene duplication and recruitment.” However, they cite experimental work showing that a duplicate gene is much more likely to be silenced (because of the costly resources expended in transcribing and translating it) than it is to acquire a new function. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/douglas_axe_and075601.html Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/ Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: “Modern neo-Darwinism and neutral evolutionary treatments,” remark Leonard Bogarad and Michael Deem, “fail to explain satisfactorily the generation of the diversity of life found on our planet.” It is not that they did not evolve, they say, but that “... most theoretical treatments of evolution consider only the limited point-mutation events that form the basis of these theories.” Their sober conclusion is that “point mutation alone is incapable of evolving systems with substantially new protein folds.”60,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69,,, http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins
Thus the problem of discrete and unchanging genes and/or proteins from one generation to the next, which Mendel first highlighted, has not been overcome by Darwinists with their appeal to random mutations. In short, Darwinists have no source for the the ‘unlimited plasticity’ that they need in order to make their theory viable. And although this is devastating in of of itself to Darwinian theory, it gets worse for Darwinists, Much worse! ,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that all the rules of the ‘central dogma’ have been broken,
around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. - Professor Denis Noble - President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. - Rocking the foundations of biology - video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184 "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html
Moreover, Michael Denton notes that “There (is) no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype.”
"To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment. Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene" - Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2
Bob goes on to state:
BA77: That failure to be able to reduce phenotype to a purely genotypic explanation is a simple fact that is established by numerous lines of empirical evidence. and it is certainly not something that I am making up out of thin air just to suit my own preferences. Bob: I don’t think anyone does that, and people working on quantitative genetics certainly don’t. We include different sources of non-genetic variation as standard, as well as looking at how the genotype and environment interact to produce the phenotype (so-called “G by E”).
And that is exactly why I sometimes affectionately refer to Bob as “Bob (and weave)”. Bob has a annoying habit of dodging the main issue at hand so as to avoid having to deal with any evidence that may directly falsify Darwinian theory. Bob, after asking me to “start with Mendel” in order to see “a lot of work on” how genotypes can generate phenotypes, Bob then, directly after telling me to do that, backpedals and says that “We include different sources of non-genetic variation as standard, as well as looking at how the genotype and environment interact to produce the phenotype (so-called “G by E”).” And yet, while that is all certainly true, it still does not circumvent the primary claim from Darwinists that the main source for novelty in Darwinian theory is held to be random mutations to DNA. In fact, the fact that Darwinists have had to ‘modify’ their theory in oreder to take into account “different sources of non-genetic variation as standard, as well as looking at how the genotype and environment interact to produce the phenotype”… the fact that Darwinists have had ‘adjust their theory’ to do that is, in of itself, a severe departure from neo-Darwinian orthodoxy and should count as falsifying evidence against Darwinian theory. As the following article notes, all of these factors that Bob listed in producing the phenotype are unexpected under Darwinian presuppositions and “taking the longer view, the selfish gene per se is looking increasingly like a twentieth-century construct.”
Genetics: Dawkins, redux - Nathaniel Comfort -Nature - 525, 184–185 (10 September 2015) Excerpt: A curious stasis underlies Dawkins's thought. His biomorphs are grounded in 1970s assumptions. Back then, with rare exceptions, each gene specified a protein and each protein was specified by a gene. The genome was a linear text — a parts list or computer program for making an organism —insulated from the environment, with the coding regions interspersed with “junk”. Today's genome is much more than a script: it is a dynamic, three-dimensional structure, highly responsive to its environment and almost fractally modular. Genes may be fragmentary, with far-flung chunks of DNA sequence mixed and matched in bewildering combinatorial arrays. A universe of regulatory and modulatory elements hides in the erstwhile junk. Genes cooperate, evolving together as units to produce traits. Many researchers continue to find selfish DNA a productive idea, but taking the longer view, the selfish gene per se is looking increasingly like a twentieth-century construct. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7568/full/525184a.html
Moreover, even granting Bob “non-genetic variation” and “environment” factors does not solve the problem of how phenotypes are generated. As the following article notes, "Organoid formation itself demonstrates that cells can become organized in the absence of predetermined long-range external patterning influences such as morphogen gradients or mechanical forces, which are a cornerstone of classic developmental biology.”
From Genome to Body Plan: A Mystery - January 24, 2017 Excerpt: Decoding genomes has been one of the most important advances of the last sixty years, but it's really just a start of a far larger mystery: the mystery of development.,,, "A long-term aim of the life sciences is to understand how organismal shape is encoded by the genome. An important challenge is to identify mechanistic links between the genes that control cell-fate decisions and the cellular machines that generate shape, therefore closing the gap between genotype and phenotype. ",,, The authors marvel at how "organoids" emerge from induced pluripotent stem cells.,,, After thinking about it, they admit that more must be going on. ,,,"Organoid formation itself demonstrates that cells can become organized in the absence of predetermined long-range external patterning influences such as morphogen gradients or mechanical forces, which are a cornerstone of classic developmental biology. This unexpected lack of requirement for long-range pre-patterning has led to organoid formation being described as an example of 'self-organization', which is defined classically as the spontaneous emergence of order through the interaction of initially homogeneous components.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/from_genome_to103451.html
In short, the biological form that any particular organism may take is not determined by any “external patterning influences” that Bob, or other Darwinists, may wish to appeal to, and therefore the magic wand of the “spontaneous emergence” of ‘self-organization’ was invoked by the researchers. Which is basically the researchers throwing their hands up in the air and admitting that they have no real clue as to how organisms are arriving at their basic form.bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Bob at 95
I wasn’t discussing inbreeding. ,,, go back to what I wrote at 83,,,,
Bob at 83
That’s probably because you haven’t studied any quantitative genetics or modern breeding techniques.,,,
LOL, if modern breeding techniques do not protect against inbreeding, via analyzing the genetic robustness and diversity of parental stock, it is worse than what Ranchers have done all along for hundreds, even thousands, of years in breeding their stock to try to enhance a certain trait and yet not fall into the pit of 'pushing the stock too far' into the problems of inbreeding. And according to this following article, you are wrong in your claim that inbreeding is not a major concern in the genetic analysis of parental stack:,
The truth about inbreeding in dairy cattle - October 2019 There is no simple solution to inbreeding. It took years to get into this situation, and it’s not going away tomorrow. - BY ASHLEY YAGER Excerpt: There’s no doubt that inbreeding has been a topic heavy on dairy farmers’ minds as we’ve progressed through the genomic era. For that very reason, the cause and effect of inbreeding was a hot topic at the National Genetics Conference, held in coordination with the 2019 National Holstein Convention in Appleton, Wis. John Cole of USDA’s Animal Genomics Improvement Laboratory provided an in-depth look at the past 10 years along with a glimpse of how we may be able to manage future inbreeding challenges. What is inbreeding? “Admittedly, inbreeding is sometimes made out to be more complicated than it really is,” said Cole. “Inbreeding is simply mating animals that are related to each other. Inbreeding is something we can manage, but it is not completely preventable,” said the longtime dairy scientist. When the science of genomics index surfaced in 2008, genotyping females became quite popular. “This process allowed for added pressure in selection programs, giving us the chance to try and take the best DNA from the population and put it together in one animal,” said Cole. “In fact, genotyping has become so popular, the combined USDA and Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding became the first database with one million genotyped individuals in July 2015.” Creating the best “The principle behind getting the best DNA is this: We take the best Chromosome 1 in the population and match it with the absolute best Chromosome 2 in the population, and we do this with all chromosomes,” he said explaining information in the figure. “If we did that (theoretically), we’d end up with an animal with an estimated breeding value of about $7,304 (NM$),” said Cole, noting that the top genomic bull available for sale is $1,170 NM$. “We still have a long way to go, but the more pressure we put on trying to reach this point, the more we’ll be driven by mathematics and other considerations,” he said. “This will lead to more heavy mating within certain lines, further driving inbreeding,” Cole commented. “I think you’re going to see a shorter generation interval on dams of bull sides.” When it comes to making breeding decisions, genomics is helping us identify the best genes from the best animals. “At the end of the day, we are in a race that never ends,” said Cole. “Everyone is trying to find the high index bull (or female for breeders).” Artificial insemination (A.I.) bulls are going to be bred to meet market demand. “If demand in the market is for high index sires, that’s what A.I. companies are going to provide,” commented Cole. “If breeders are not willing to pay for less inbreeding, the market will not provide it. High genetic merit bulls have high marketability. Lower inbreeding rates (in most cases) result in slower genetic gains. As a dairyman, if you slow down, your competitors just get farther ahead,” said the Louisiana native. “Who is willing to go slower in their genetic selection program to better manage inbreeding? Are you willing to watch neighbors and competitors go faster?” he asked. https://hoards.com/article-26575-the-truth-about-inbreeding-in-dairy-cattle.html
bornagain77_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 93 -
Moreover, my main point all along with Bob has been that this is still a far cry from proving that genotypes can generate phenotypes.
Ah, so you were arguing something totally different! FWIW, there is a lot of work on this, start with Mendel.
That failure to be able to reduce phenotype to a purely genotypic explanation is a simple fact that is established by numerous lines of empirical evidence. and it is certainly not something that I am making up out of thin air just to suit my own preferences.
I don't think anyone does that, and people working on quantitative genetics certainly don't. We include different sources of non-genetic variation as standard, as well as looking at how the genotype and environment interact to produce the phenotype (so-called "G by E").Bob O'H_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 85 -
Bob 83, since this is your field, I can see where you want to ‘sell it’, but again, I don’t see this as that much of an improvement over what ranchers have already done in the past. Ranchers have been well aware of the pitfalls of inbreeding and have long taken measures to insure against it:
Eh? I wasn't discussing inbreeding. Please, go back to what I wrote at 83, read it carefully and try to understand it. If there's anything that's not clear, ask and I'll try to explain.Bob O'H_{February 19, 2020
February
02
Feb
19
19
2020
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

To state the obvious, free will is a tricky concept. Like everyone else, I have the experience of exercising free will in my daily life. But it does not appear to be unlimited As we have discussed before, I did not consciously choose my sexuality and I think this is true for most if not all people. I don't like baked beans, they make me feel nauseous. I tried to make myself like them by eating them but it just didn't happen. Then we have evidence from the Bible in the case of Peter's triple denial of Christ. Even though he had been explicitly warned in advance what was going to happen, he couldn't do anything about it. Could God being trying to tell us something here? And from quantum physics you should ask our resident expert, BA77, about superdeterminism. This has been put forward as a way of explaining the mysterious phenomenon of quantum entanglement. Unfortunately, if true, it also means there is no free will. Verse; -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5 "You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."Seversky_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Well Mimus, I can now see that the equation would be of some use to breeders and reluctantly, but honestly, admitted as much in my discussion with Bob. My point in reply to Bob was that "I don’t see this as that much of an improvement over what ranchers have already done in the past. " You may quibble that it allows breeders to avoid costly mistakes by being more accurate in their measurements for potential genetic inbreeding, and even on that point I would have to agree with you. But still this improvement is along the same line as what professional breeders have done all along. i.e. There are limits to the desired traits that you can get and you must be careful to not go too far or you will wind up with problems with inbreeding. I dare say that this has been known about for hundreds if not thousands of years. Moreover, my main point all along with Bob has been that this is still a far cry from proving that genotypes can generate phenotypes. Which is not a minor point in the debate between ID advocates and Darwinists. In fact I referenced several links, (regurgitated several links in your biased Darwinian view of things), that proved that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place. That failure to be able to reduce phenotype to a purely genotypic explanation is a simple fact that is established by numerous lines of empirical evidence. and it is certainly not something that I am making up out of thin air just to suit my own preferences. Moreover, this empirically established fact, since Darwinism is based on reductive materialism, goes to the heart of Darwin's theoretical framework and falsifies Darwinism from the inside out. You see Mimus, that is how science works. You set your biases aside, let the evidence speak for itself, and see whether a theory is true or not.
"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 on the Scientific Method
I have yet to personally meet a Darwinist on UD who has been willing to set his biases aside and to be honest with the evidence. For instance, I'm to the point of considering it to be an outright miracle if Seversky were ever to be honest with the evidence. :) Here are a few lines of evidence that falsify Darwinian evolution, Lines of evidence that die-hard Darwinists, such as Seversky, simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their atheistic theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

I think that what Denyse was trying to highlight is the profound difference between humans and the rest of animals. - We can choose to "bypass" certain aspects of nature. - Unless you are among those who think that free will is an illusion and we are pre-determined automatons.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

From "Why Is a Fly Not a Horse?" by geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
What Richard Dawkins hopefully understands is you do not want to limit the genetic diversity to the extent that we become those sad, alienated animals. Other than that, as bad as it sounds, there seems to be people who should never breed. Meaning if theirs was eliminated from the gene pool it most likely would be a good thing.ET_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply