According to evolutionists scientific problems don’t count for much. They believe evolution is a fact that science will confirm. Scientific problems with evolution, therefore, are more indicative of gaps in our knowledge rather than any fault of their convictions. Hence they view scientific critiques as based on gaps or ignorance, rather than any direct evidence against evolution. This is a good example of how the religion that drives evolutionary thought harms science. In this case evolutionists make science vulnerable to just-so stories. If scientific problems don’t matter then anything goes. In fact, there are substantial empirical problems with evolution. Not only have most of evolution’s fundamental predictions failed, the science shows the idea to be highly unlikely. Consider, for example, the area of protein evolution where recent findings make the theory even more unlikely. Read more
15 Replies to “The Amylome: More Constraints on Protein Design and Evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
From the article Dr. Hunter references:
“Eisenberg, Dobson and others have speculated that the self-complementary stickiness of these short segments might have made them useful building blocks in the earliest stages of life on Earth. Moreover, reports have started to emerge of proteins that function normally in the amyloid state, for example some pituitary hormones. “We know by now of over two dozen native amyloids, so this state is clearly used by biology in a functional way as well as a dysfunctional way,” says Eisenberg”
On another note, could Dr. Hunter include more references in his posts? It is often difficult to trace the claims being made when “elsewhere, evolutionists…” is the norm, often with only a link to a former post that links to another post….
I bring this up, because one estimate of the total number of evolutionary experiments possible in the history of life 10^21 is so inane, I wanted to see where it came from. There are 10^30 or greater bacteria on earth, now, each harboring multiple mutations, so i was puzzled. I can’t trace the origin of this number through the post.
Here you go DrREC on the 10^21 number;
DrREC, does it not bother you in the least that neo-Darwinists continually refer to hypothetical worlds in which evolution is forever searching for new functional proteins, so as to be able to evolve more complexity ‘in the future’, but that they never actually demonstrate the evolution of any novel functional proteins in the present for those of us who are skeptical of their hypothetical worlds??? It seems to me that this little matter of having ZERO empirical evidence, for the origination of novel proteins by neo-Darwinian processes, should be taken far more seriously by you instead of you just accepting any conjecture that is dreamed up and then calling that conjecture science!
Thanks for the link-but I think it reinforces my point. It was the fifth “here” off a link off the post.
As for the rest of the links, I think they just go to showing the issues with Hunter’s critique, and the game of big big numbers.
To get those big big numbers have to assume the only functional protein is a large modern one like we see today.
But functional amyloids, catalytic peptides, peptides that assemble into larger domain-like architectures, are observed and experimentally made.
Well now DrREC, you simply are restating that ‘big big numbers’, against the plausibility of finding functional proteins by neo-Darwinian means, are a game, and yet, without reference, you claim this is not so and offer no ‘small small numbers’ to counter the work of Doug Axe and others (Sauer; MIT), or even to counter the critique of Szostak’s 1 in 10^12 number for simple ATP binding.,,, But DrREC, aside from this ‘playing games’ with ‘big big numbers’, the materialistic framework, of the neo-Darwinian evolution of functional proteins by PURELY material processes, is falsified, by a completely different angle, by the finding of ‘non-local’ quantum information/entanglement in functional proteins:
First here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism) by quantum entanglement:
And yet, to the chagrin of atheistic materialists, but to the delight of the rest of us, quantum entanglement is now found, on a massive scale, in molecular biology, even though just a few years ago, because of ‘noisy high temperature’ concerns in living creatures, it was considered completely impossible for quantum entanglement to exist in living creatures;
i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!
,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)!
Further note:
To dovetail ‘Functional Quantum Information’ into Dembski and Marks’s work on Conservation of Information;,,,
Dembski and Marks outline the conservation of ‘classical’ information here;
Yet,,,Encoded classical information that Dembski and Marks found to be ‘conserved’, classical information such as what we find in computer programs, and yes like the classical information we find encoded on DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ quantum information by the following method:,,,
,,,And, to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is ‘conserved’;,,,
The big numbers game is just that. If the nature of the first proteins in life is unknown, it is a guessing game played with big numbers that ignore early evolution.
What the deuce does quantum entanglement have to do with anything?
Unless someone else jumps in, I’ll stop here-the links you toss up are far too diffuse a mess to have a conversation about.
DrREC you, as usual, avoid presenting anything to counter the the direct empirical observation of extreme rarity for functional proteins, and acts as if Darwinian evolution is somehow immune to actually prove itself directly. Pseudo-science at its peak!!! Moreover you ask:
Yet quantum entanglement/information is now EMPIRICALLY shown, by direct observational evidence, which is far more than I can say about anything in Darwinism, to be inside functional proteins. Thus since neo-Darwinism purports to explain everything in life solely by reference to purely material processes, and yet quantum entanglement/information is not reducible to material processes, I would say this has EVERYTHING to do with the matter at hand!!! For you to play this all this off as if it does not matter reveals the extraordinary, and irrational, lengths you will go to to deny the obvious implications of design that we find in life. As Dr. Hunter says, Religion drives science and it matters!
DrREC, perhaps it is necessary to strongly impress upon you just how ‘spooky’ it is to find quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology on such a massive scale:
“quantum entanglement is not reducible to material processes”
How so?
Define quantum entanglement in your own words.
Then explain how it it immaterial.
Well DrREC, since you never believe anything I have to say anyway, here it is from the mouth of the scientist who was at the forefront of empirically falsifying local realism (reductive materialism), with quantum entanglement:
i.e. DrREC, all you have to do to explain finding quantum entanglement in molecular biology, in materialistic neo-Darwinian terms, is explain how material particles can ’cause’ a non-local (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement ‘effect’. Yet in order to do so you will have to falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s work, which falsified ‘local’ realism! ,,,, Good luck with that! 🙂
Well, you answered neither of me questions.
Let me provide you a reference:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0607057v2
“Of course, whether users of the phrase ‘local realism’ are misusing and/or abusing the term ‘realism’ can only be established if we know (which, by the way, requires that they know) what they mean by it. Since, unfortunately, they typically don’t tell us what they mean, we will survey four di?erent senses of realism that one might plausibly think could be relevant.”
So what do you mean by ‘local realism’
Hint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Well DrREC, as usual, you do your dead level best to obfuscate the obvious, but to put it even more clearly and highlight, for others, the levels of irrationality you will delude yourself with just to deny the obvious Theistic implications.,,, Entanglement is now conclusively shown to be ‘instantaneous’, regardless of how far apart two entangled particles may be in the universe. Einstein himself argued for the materialistic position against quantum mechanics with what were termed ‘hidden variables’,, these ‘hidden variables were postulated so that quantum entanglement would not violate what Einstein felt were insuperable space-time barriers of the speed of light, Parameters that he had layed out in General, and Special, Relativity. Yet Quantum Mechanics, to borrow from Laplace, has ‘no need of that hidden variable hypothesis’ and thus no need for any space-time constraints whatsoever:
Yet DrREC, though quantum entanglement/information defies space-time constraints, material particles are STILL strictly constrained to space-time (speed of light) constraints. i.e. It is impossible for the material particles to be the ’cause’ of a ‘effect’ that defy space-time. i.e. A cause which is not limited to space-time must be supplied in order to explain a effect which defies space-time. The ’cause’ for quantum entanglement is simply not within the ability of material particles to supply:
Further notes;
Ok, maybe a simpler question. Can we agree realism in physics is not the same thing as metaphysical realism?
DrREC, you can define whatever you want to mean whatever you want, so that you can believe whatever you want, because, as far as I have seen of your ‘science’, that is what you always do anyways, in spite of what the ANY evidence says to the contrary.,,, As for myself I will follow the evidence where it leads!
further notes on falsifying neo-Darwinism:
Materialistic neo-Darwinism contends that all the functional information found in life, including ‘transcendent’ quantum information, merely emerges from material particles. Yet quantum teleportation, which is a extension of quantum entanglement/information,,,,
,,, teleportation reduces material particles to ‘transcendent’ quantum information in the process of ‘instantaneous’ quantum teleportation of the material particles. Thus how can quantum information ’emerge’ from material particles, when material particles reduce to transcendent quantum information in the first place???: