The remarkable process of cell division

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 2, 2022

Cell biology, Intelligent Design}

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

Chromosomes are densely packed DNA. The two “sister chromatids” of a chromosome, having been accurately duplicated during prophase and secured by centromeres, are arranged with all the other chromosomes on the spindle axis in metaphase. Soon after they are winched apart in anaphase into daughter cells. This elaborate choreography takes place every time a cell divides. The cell cycle is fascinating to anyone who has witnessed it under a light microscope, as you can see here:
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

Remarkable movies made with super-resolution atomic force microscopy show the parts of cohesin undergoing conformational changes. These hand-over-hand motions operate in the dark without eyes, using ATP for energy. They get it right every time!
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Everything is coming up non-random (PAV)

Comments

Bornagain77: I see nothing whatsoever in your responses that even comes close to ‘scientifically’ refuting these devastating empirical falsifications that I have listed against your Darwinian worldview. Gee, I thought we were discussion a particular statement by Dr Behe which you have no shown that you understand the underlying mathematics. I guess you've conceded that point then since you've chosen not to show you do have the understanding. Moreover JVL, to rub salt in your wound, I can ‘scientifically’ prove that atheists are in the midst of ‘denialism’ in regards to ever honestly acknowledging design. Gosh, even ET will tell you that science is not about proofs; it's about explanations. Anyway, since you're clearly not going to answer the basic probability problems I stated i'm happy to walk away leaving those problems unanswered.JVL_{February 11, 2022
February
02
Feb
11
11
2022
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

JVL
The other more general issue is the assumption or consideration that there is some kind of plan or goal ... There is no indication or evidence that we, humans, were the goal or target of the whole endeavour. If you disabuse yourself of that notion then it’s all just a bit of luck. I understand that is a difficult stance to abandon but, again, if there is no real evidence that there is a plan or goal . . . At least please try and consider the idea that there really is no goal or plan. Think of how things would play out under that criterium. And then think: is the evidence consistent with that view? Just honestly ask that question.
The idea that humans arose via "a bit of luck" with no plan or goal affects how you can appreciate the value of your fellow human beings, of society, or the value of yourself. A mindless, lucky-chance, with no goal or purpose at the beginning - assigns a certain non-value to all of human life, all the way to its end. Setting aside what "a bit of luck" can actually produce, as just about every person on earth has and can witness and attest to - it's difficult to find people who actually proclaim the meaninglessness of human beings in a way that is consistent. Maybe you would say it. A guy like Alex Rosenberg has come close. Friedrich Neitzsche famously went down that path - complaining about fellow atheists who tried to soften the message. But nobody really stays strong and consistent with the "random, no purpose, plan" idea. They always pull in some (usually Christian) value to assign to human life and their own life - and seek moral growth, virtue, meaning and a bigger impact in their life than you could get with just a bit of luck as your origin.Silver Asiatic_{February 11, 2022
February
02
Feb
11
11
2022
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus BA77 & Q, for me the decisive issue is finding that D/RNA has coded strings and algorithms, with of course molecular nanotech execution machinery. Error correction stuff just adds to it. We are talking language and stepwise goal directed processes here, at the root of cell based life.
Biologists have the knowledge of big pieces of the cell but there are different levels of resolution/magnifying and as studying continue there are more and more complex levels of information. It's an unbridgeable gap between junk DNA (genes that codes for proteins are enough for cell functioning and the rest are just junk) and "epigenetics"( where an association of factors in parents life are recorded into genes(?) and offsprings react as if they already experienced what in fact only their parents did. . )Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 11, 2022
February
02
Feb
11
11
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

PPPS, I have for years pointed to Venter et al as showing actual lab scale design and modification of life forms using molecular nanotech. It is my opinion that such are early generation exercises that should lead to actually synthesised life by the end of this century. But of course that would be by intelligently directed configuration. You have been present when I have said as much. It sounds like it is time to remind that there are weak argument correctives under the resources tab.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

PPS, do I need to note, that lotteries have to be designed to be winnable?kairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

JVL, I call your bluff. Cite a single case of actually observed emergence of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information by blind dynamic stochastic processes. Actually observed not inferred or assumed; that is Newton's very reasonable criterion for allowing explanatory factors into the work of science: seeing the like effects on a candidate cause which then leads to arguing like causes like. So, kindly fill in_ ________, no smuggled in active information by the back door, which plagues the various simulation exercises. I predict, you cannot fill in that claim, or it would long since have been in every UD thread for over a decade now. We can readily see how you tried to project blame to me above rather than simply providing a case in point, i.e. turnabout tactics. The case of the internet as well as your friendly neighbourhood hardware store [try, every screw and every nut with matching thread], mechanic's shop and library already ground trillions of observed cases of such FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits by intelligently directed configuration. KF PS, and it remains the case that the infinite monkeys exercises of random text generation are a factor of about 10^100 short on config space size. I clip Wiki again, inadvertently testifying against interest:
One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed, "VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[27] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters: RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d
PPS: A search challenge plausibility argument is not a probability argument. A search space of 3.27 * 10^150 to 1.07 * 10^301 configs will greatly exceed the search capacity of 10^57 atoms in our sol system with ~ 10^12 - 14 ops per second per atom as observer, or 10^80 atoms, respectively. It is easy to see that such cannot search more than a negligible fraction, and further search for golden search exponentiates the problem. For, a search is a selected subset of a given set. So the space of possible searches is the power set, of scale 2^n for an original space of scale n. Search challenge then runs into, the sheer complexity of a von Neumann kinematic self replicator, but long before that, the need to have correct parts in well matched, correctly assembled and coupled together patterns to achieve coherent configuration based function. How long does one have to shake up the parts in a bait bucket to expect to correctly assemble an ABU 6500 C fishing reel or something else that is similarly functional? How long would one have to shake up 1,000 or even 500 coins to get a coherent ASCII coded text in English of 72 to 143 characters? Or a similar executable computer program? Monkeys typing is of similar character, where strings are WLOG as 3-d functional entities can be reduced through description languages, cf AUTOCAD.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

BA77 & Q, for me the decisive issue is finding that D/RNA has coded strings and algorithms, with of course molecular nanotech execution machinery. Error correction stuff just adds to it. We are talking language and stepwise goal directed processes here, at the root of cell based life. The notion that blind chance and mechanical necessity in some Darwin's pond or the like somehow created a von Neumann self replicating entity with those characteristics blindly is not even able to pass the giggle test. This leaves the massively known source of language and goal-directed processes on the table, design. Design is there from OoL up in the tree of life. Beyond that stage, the design inference keeps on making sense once we look at body plans up to our own. That's going to be more and more sensible in an information age and the imposed a priori evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers are increasingly going to be obviously threadbare ideological question begging. A pre information age theory that did not foresee the information based tech of life is simply not viable in the long term. But given ideological power bases and centrality to the agenda of blocking the door against the shadow of possibility that there is a Divine creator, they will go down fighting, kicking, screaming and preening their lab coats all the way down. That's what's happening. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

BA77, yup, they really are weird beasties. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

"How about starting with first molecule that will be part of first cell ever." You are right LCD, it gets worse for Darwinists, far worse,
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful. http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence "lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability". For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10exp140 and 1 in 10exp164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/minimal-complexity-relegates-life-origin-models-to-wishful-speculation/ The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 “We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s functions.” - James Tour – considered one of the top ten synthetic chemists in the world The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - March 2016 - Lecture with James Tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zQXgJ-dXM4
bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

That paper by Behe that talk about probabilities of 2 mutations doesn't uncover the full image of reality because start calculating probabilities in "a life" environment that is already in place and FUNCTIONAL. How about starting with first molecule that will be part of first cell ever. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Off topic: There is a very interesting article up on ENV concerning how Darwin himself considered his theory to be (very) short on facts, and was very hesitant to publish his book precisely because he knew that it was (very) short on facts.
Darwin’s Reticence: How on Earth Did the Origin of Species Ever Get Published? - Robert F. Shedinger - February 10, 2022 Excerpt: On November 29, 1857, he reported to Asa Gray: "What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being induction from too few facts.",,, ,,, We must wrestle much more than we have with the irony that perhaps the most famous and influential scientific treatise in the Western world was viewed by its author as nothing more than an imperfect abstract of a larger work that never saw the light of day. And this abstract only made it into print through an unlikely series of serendipitous circumstances and virtually against the wishes of its author. The Origin of Species has dubious scientific value. The fact that it gets treated as seminal is a clear testament to the artificial and ideological nature of the entire edifice of the evolutionary theory that is built upon it. Even Darwin would be aghast at what the world has made of a mere abstract that he was almost pathologically ambivalent about ever publishing. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/02/darwins-reticence-how-on-earth-did-the-origin-of-species-ever-get-published/
bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Frankly JVL, your hand-waving "denialism" aside, I am quite satisfied to let my comments at 106, 107, and 119 stand as stated,
106 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-remarkable-process-of-cell-division/#comment-746624 119 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-remarkable-process-of-cell-division/#comment-746647
I see nothing whatsoever in your responses that even comes close to 'scientifically' refuting these devastating empirical falsifications that I have listed against your Darwinian worldview FYI, 'denialism' is not even close to being a valid refutation of a scientific argument, as you and other Darwinists seem to think, but is instead to be considered a mental illness.
"In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth." - Denialism - Wikipedia
Moreover JVL, to rub salt in your wound, I can 'scientifically' prove that atheists are in the midst of 'denialism' in regards to ever honestly acknowledging design.
Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712 Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Cue JVL to deny that he is scientifically proven to be in the midst of 'denialism' :) Verse:
Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Case in point, JVL doubles, and even triples, down on his fallacious arguments, and now claims, “you are incorrect in your assessment that ‘Darwinists’ NEVER give any realistic mathematics defined probabilities.” Yup, they provided the rate that Dr Behe used in his supposition. Didn't they? Yes? Oh dear, now you're going to have to refute that information that you and Dr Behe used was given. Gosh, that is a bit of a dilemma. Then you go off on topics beyond the core issue in question, as you are won't to do. AND you haven't even attempted to answer the basic probability questions I posed for you, or anyone, to answer. Nice try but I think I'll wait 'til you address those. Moreover, JVL also pretended as if the fact that Dr. Behe empirically derived results are in general agreement with several other lines of empirical, and mathematical, results, is not relevant to the overall question of whether, number one, Dr. Behe’s results are, in fact, correct or not, and, number two, whether JVL’s own Darwinian worldview is even true or not. You are just flailing around all over the place when all I did was say that Dr Behe got one mathematical model wrong. You must be really desperate to avoid drawing attention to the fact that you and Kairosfocus and ET have not been able to answer the basic probability questions I posed above. And why is that I wonder? Because it shows you don't really understand the issues involved? And admitting that would make you look very, very foolish. What ever happened to honour and truth? Why is it so hard for you to admit when you don't know something? You must be really, really scared. How will you be judged if you've avoided being honest and true?JVL_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: JVL, first, the design inference filter as you know has defaults of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, it is only when such become maximally implausible that design is on the table. You are making a probabilistic argument are you not? ET is not going to like that. AND, in this case, most people with knowledge in the field think that Dr Behe did not make the correct probabilistic inference meaning: unguided processes have not been shown to be 'maximally' improbable. You do realise that 'maximally' improbable has no strict mathematical meaning? I understand you won't say impossible but 'maximally' improbable? Really? Next, there is no blind, dynamic-stochastic process shown empirically to lead to FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits; there are trillions of cases by design as observed and search challenge readily explains. You mean none that you accept as probable or even likely. The thesis that there is no design or plan, to become scientific, would have to have observational basis relevant to origin of life and body plans, nothing is there that is close and nothing is seriously in prospect Well, if you can provide a clear and unambiguous design or plan then please do so. As for combinations, the rule I noted is for independent events, there are others for somewhat dependent events. Yes, yes, we all know that! You don't have to lecture us. Well, not me anyway. Again, I have posed several, simple, easy to solve probability problems above, can you solve any of them?JVL_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

per KF at 97, "Were your controllers electronic, hydraulic or pneumatic? KF" Well, in tech school, I built, from the component level up, an electronic PID controller. But I have worked on all three types of controllers. Each type is, save for the math behind it, pretty much its own unique beast that must be tamed in its own unique way. :)bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

To repeat what I stated earlier, "I don't know what in blue blazes Darwinists are doing, but they are certainly not doing science." Case in point, JVL doubles, and even triples, down on his fallacious arguments, and now claims, "you are incorrect in your assessment that ‘Darwinists’ NEVER give any realistic mathematics defined probabilities." Okie Dokie JVL, now is your chance to prove to all the Darwin doubters on UD that Darwinian evolution is a real scientific theory, (instead of being a blind faith religion for atheists as it actually is). What is the realistic mathematically defined probability for the appearance of an eye, a butterfly wing, and/or for an entire human? (peer-reviewed citations please! :) ) I'll even generously give you a prokaryote cell and artificial selection as starting points, (effectively giving you loaded dice to start with). Let's see your numbers JVL. How many generations and rounds of selection before you are reasonably likely to get something resembling a rudimentary eye? How many more generations and rounds of selection before you are reasonably likely to get something resembling a butterfly wing? And how many more generations and rounds of selection before you are reasonably likely to get something resembling a human? Remember only 10^40 organisms have ever existed on the face of earth (M. Behe, S. Meyer), so please do try to be judicious in how you decide to parse out your probabilistic resources. :) Moreover, JVL also pretended as if the fact that Dr. Behe empirically derived results are in general agreement with several other lines of empirical, and mathematical, results, is not relevant to the overall question of whether, number one, Dr. Behe's results are, in fact, correct or not, and, number two, whether JVL's own Darwinian worldview is even true or not. JVL is dead wrong on both counts. Having several lines of independent empirical, and mathematical, evidence all converging to the same conclusion, (namely that Darwinian evolution is probabilistically impossible), is one of the most sure signs in science that you are, in fact, dealing with a correct scientific conclusion. Moreover, I just remembered another line of empirical evidence that, number one, falls into general agreement with Dr. Behe's empirically derived results, and, number two, 'devastatingly' undermines the entire reductive materialistic foundation upon which Darwin's theory sits. This 'devastating' empirical evidence comes from recent advances in 'quantum biology'. Specifically, in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “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,”,,,
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
To state the blatantly obvious, this one in 10^50 empirical finding is certainly found to be in general agreement with what Dr. Behe's found, (as well as being 10 billion times above the 10^40 number for organisms that have ever existed on earth). Moreover, to drive this point even further home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
As well, DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics, (as is presupposed within Darwinian thought), but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark 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
In fact, classical information is now found to be a subset of quantum information. In the following site entitled “Quantum Information Science”, a site where Charles Bennett, (of quantum teleportation and reversible computation fame), himself is on the steering committee,
Quantum Information Science Steering Committee C. H. Bennett IBM D. P. DiVincenzo IBM N. Gershenfeld MIT H. M. Gibbs University of Arizona H. J. Kimble Caltech J. Preskill Caltech U. V. Vazirani UC/Berkeley D. J. Wineland NIST C. Yao Princeton University https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm
On that site, they have this following illustration showing classical information to be a subset of quantum information. They state, "The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.”
Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif below that illustration they have this caption, “Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.”
What is so devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists with the finding pervasive quantum information, coherence and/or entanglement, within molecular biology on such a massive scale, (I.e in every important biomolecule), is that quantum information, coherence and/or 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
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of 'hidden variables', simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the 'non-local' quantum information, coherence and/or entanglement, that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.
“hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358
Whereas on the other hand, Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain quantum information, coherence and/or entanglement. 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.
it is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is 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’, cannot be created nor destroyed, 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 several lines of empirical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies (just as Christians have claimed all along). 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) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing) - per radar online
Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance. As Jesus once asked his disciples, along with a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?” Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

At least please try and consider the idea that there really is no goal or plan.
:lol: Oops an atheist is forced to lie saying that "survival" is not a purpose. You mean that you win a lotto prize every day for "millions of years" without buying the ticket ? If an atheist say so , must be true.Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

JVL, first, the design inference filter as you know has defaults of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, it is only when such become maximally implausible that design is on the table. Next, there is no blind, dynamic-stochastic process shown empirically to lead to FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits; there are trillions of cases by design as observed and search challenge readily explains. I have noted this many times so there is no fair basis for suggesting mere bias against blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. The thesis that there is no design or plan, to become scientific, would have to have observational basis relevant to origin of life and body plans, nothing is there that is close and nothing is seriously in prospect. As for combinations, the rule I noted is for independent events, there are others for somewhat dependent events. Mutations are generally held to be accidental, if they are highly correlated and aligned with function or survival in stressed environments that may be interesting and significant evidence of built in functionality, ie even more FSCO/I. As to oh, there are many mut combinations likely to confer function, so things are much more probable, the basic problem is, if that were materially the case for Malaria, we should be seeing a lot more resistance emerging. Such would shift odds but the search challenge issue obtains esp when complexity of combinations mounts up. . But then, this is not my main point. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: As for probabilities of composites, the matter is never simple as you will see I noted on independence and combination to effect a given result, which is not the same as simultaneous occurrence. When events are not independent, different rules obtain, with provisions to avoid double counting etc. I take it you are trying to suggest the mutations are not independent, but not so combined as to point to design. That is a tough row to hoe. Yes, you are stating the obvious criteria except that there is no need to refer to design. The question is: if certain mutations are required for a certain modification to occur then what is the chance of that happening. That's what Dr Behe was addressing. And he made a probabilistic argument that it was so unlikely that the required combination would arise that, in his mind, it implied the existence of a designer. But, if he got the mathematical modelling wrong, then that occurrence would be much more likely and that would undercut his argument. So, part of the problem is arguing from the point of view of a particular modification and that is like saying: what are the chances of a particular person winning the lottery? That is always vanishingly small but IF there is no designer and no plan then you have to consider what is the chance of any modification happening. And that changes the probabilities. The other more general issue is the assumption or consideration that there is some kind of plan or goal. This is akin to the sharp-shooter fallacy: what is the chance that this particular target was hit if the process was random? But, again, the argument is made from the point of view from the 'winner' of the process. The life form that won. There is no indication or evidence that we, humans, were the goal or target of the whole endeavour. If you disabuse yourself of that notion then it's all just a bit of luck. I understand that is a difficult stance to abandon but, again, if there is no real evidence that there is a plan or goal . . . At least please try and consider the idea that there really is no goal or plan. Think of how things would play out under that criterium. And then think: is the evidence consistent with that view? Just honestly ask that question.JVL_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

JVL, for argument, I will accept that you have withdrawn the suggestion that is rhetorically implicit in characterising Behe as a Chemist. Similarly, the reluctant half withdrawal on focus on substance. As for probabilities of composites, the matter is never simple as you will see I noted on independence and combination to effect a given result, which is not the same as simultaneous occurrence. When events are not independent, different rules obtain, with provisions to avoid double counting etc. I take it you are trying to suggest the mutations are not independent, but not so combined as to point to design. That is a tough row to hoe. KF PS, to underscore the point drawn from Lewontin, here is the US NSTA, in 2000:
All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [--> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [--> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [--> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [--> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [--> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that's why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [--> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [--> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [--> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [--> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]
kairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Here, I note how you loaded up on a no true scotsman fallacy, by using “Chemist,” rather than what even the tendentious Wikipedia’s hit piece has to concede at outset: BIO-Chemist, i.e. knowledgeable on the chemistry involved in cellular and higher bodily processes, thus intimately familiar with the molecular biology and associated chemical interactions. Which, are key to his claims. Where, given the hostility of some of his colleagues, it is highly relevant to note, too, a career achievement he lists: “[he is] Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.” You make assumptions. I almost stated that Dr Behe was a bio-chemist but then I thought maybe that wasn't true. And I failed to look it up. So I admit to getting that wrong but there was no intended malice in the mistake. Where, any fair person will agree that consistently, I have focussed on the substance of the argument, making a note on credibility as appropriate, as I did just above with Wikipedia, using principle of embarrassment, here a concession against known tendentiousness and ideological interest. I don't think that is completely true but, in interest of pursuing the actual topic under discussion, I won't continue to push the point. Here, too, he is effectively using a 5th form first unit of probability point that with a composite event E made up of components e1 and e2 . . . en, where there is reason to see these as independent, P(E) = p1 x p2 x . . . pn. Mutations and their locations in biomolecules are going to be effectively independent of one another and it seems we are looking at a composite effect conferring drug resistance. Again, the point is, not made by me initially, is that the situation is more complicated than that and that Dr Behe was mistaken in his characterisation of the situation. So, the matter is back to where it should always have been, that odds of 1 in 10^20 established empirically lead to 1 in 10^40 for a composite result. No, the situation is more complicated than that. You're just saying it is simple doesn't make it so.JVL_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Thus, although JVL falsely claimed that Dr. Behe, (and especially me), don’t really understand the mathematical probabilities involved, the fact of the matter is that it is Darwinists, and JVL himself, who either doesn’t understand the entire concept of realistically defining mathematical probabilities, and/or who is being purposely deceitful about the entire nature of the mathematical probabilities being dealt with. I said Dr Behe made a mistake. I suspect you don't really understand the mathematics, which you could clear up but you won't. As far as the rest of your screed is concerned: who are you to judge who is right and who is wrong when you (apparently) can't do the mathematical modelling yourself? Moreover, although JVL falsely claimed that Dr. Behe was not qualified to truly understand the mathematical probabilities involved since he was only a chemist, and is not a (evolutionary) biologist and/or a mathematician, the fact of the matter is that Dr. Behe’s straightforward, and empirically derived, results for the probabilities involved are in general agreement with several other lines of empirical, and mathematical, evidence, I said Dr Behe made a mistake. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Does that better match your conception of all this being an ideological war instead of just a scientific disagreement? IOW, directly contrary to JVL’s claim that Darwinists understand mathematical probabilities better than ID advocates do, Darwinists NEVER give any realistic mathematical defined probabilities as to the time frame of when it might be reasonable to expect Darwinian processes to produce some biological structure,,, say, producing an eye, a butterfly wing, and/or producing an entire human. Aside from escalating what I actually said you are incorrect in your assessment that 'Darwinists' NEVER give any realistic mathematics defined probabilities. But I've stopped expecting you to be fair. JVL falsely insists that only he and other die-hard Darwinists, who oppose Dr. Behe, truly understand mathematical probabilities and that ID advocates, like Dr. Behe, (and especially like me), do not really understand the probabilities involved I said Dr Behe made a mistake. And I suspect you don't understand the mathematics. You can show you do understand the mathematics but you won't. Why is that? Just because at one point you managed to accomplish a technically difficult task in good time does that mean you can understand a complicated probabilistic, biological situation? I'm not diminishing your accomplishment just like I'm not demonising Dr Behe or other ID proponents (despite your attempts to make it sound that way). I am suggesting that Dr Behe made a mistake and that you have failed to show a basic understanding of the mathematics involved and have chosen to not try and show you do understand.JVL_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

ET: OK- JVL is correct in that two events with a probability of 10^20 do NOT give us a combined probability of 10^40. Behe was wrong in saying that it does. It does depend on the nature and relationship of the events; sometimes it is appropriate to multiply the probabilities. But the case that Dr Behe was addressing was more complicated and required more analysis and a more complicated mathematical model. I have always had time for Dr Behe: he is completely honest and straight-forward, he testified at the Dover trial when some of his fellow ID supporters didn't, he allowed himself to be interviewed on the Skeptical Inquirer podcast years ago, he has (unless he's retired) stayed a respected member of the Lehigh faculty but not been afraid or stifled from expressing his support for ID, he has conceded some parts of unguided evolution as being true. I consider him an honourable fellow. I have often thought that if the 'dialogue' between ID and no-ID proponents wasn't so toxic at times he might have had a better discussion with his critics over this issue.JVL_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

The probability discussion has absolutely no relevance because darwinists have no clue about internal mechanism that maintain homeostasis and regulate genomic activity(aka intelligent responses to environment ). Their ignorance is disguised by general expressions like random mutation , natural selection that explain nothing . it's like saying that a rabbit(evolution) can be explained by a magician(natural selection) and his hat(random mutation). Ok we've seen the rabbit appearing from magician's hat but this is not the explanation for the existence of a rabbit.Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

If they're independent events, then the probability of 10^20 and 10^20 would be 10^40. If there's a dependency or common elements then they would be added so, 200000000000000000000.Silver Asiatic_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

ET: "JVL is correct in that two events with a probability of 10^20 do NOT give us a combined probability of 10^40. Behe was wrong in saying that it does." HUH??? I disagree with you, Behe's reasoning is straightforward. (and agrees with several other lines of empirical and mathematical evidence as I just pointed out in posts 106 and 107). As I further pointed out in posts 106 and 107, It is Darwinists who have to put up smoke and mirrors, as far as probabilities are concerned, to try to get around his straightforward reasoning.bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

OK- JVL is correct in that two events with a probability of 10^20 do NOT give us a combined probability of 10^40. Behe was wrong in saying that it does. But that doesn't diminish the point that the only reason probability arguments are used is because there isn't any actual evidence.ET_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Moreover, although Durrett and Schmidt's mathematical estimates, via population genetics, are in general agreement with Dr. Behe's, (and Axe and Gauger's), empirically derived results, Dr. Behe's empirically derived results, as far as science itself is concerned, are to be considered far more valid, and/or far more realistic, than Durrett and Schmidt's mathematical estimates are, since Dr. Behe's estimates are based on real world experimental results, and are not based on mathematical models. Mathematical models which often fail to take certain real world facts into consideration. As Dr. Behe explains, “The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,,”
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate.,,, The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,, http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
Thus, although JVL falsely claimed that Dr. Behe, (and especially me), don't really understand the mathematical probabilities involved, the fact of the matter is that it is Darwinists, and JVL himself, who either doesn’t understand the entire concept of realistically defining mathematical probabilities, and/or who is being purposely deceitful about the entire nature of the mathematical probabilities being dealt with. Moreover, although JVL is a sad one-trick pony, who ignores any and all empirical evidence that falsifies his Darwinian worldview, and who likes to, repeatedly, pretend that you have to have a PhD in mathematics, (and/or a PhD in ‘evolutionary’ biology), to truly understand Darwin’s theory, (and if you don’t have a PhD in mathematics or evolutionary biology then, according to JVL's reasoning, you have no right to even criticize Darwin’s theory), the fact of the matter is that, as mathematician Granville Sewell himself pointed out, “It has never required a PhD in science to understand the key issue in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design. It is blindingly obvious to non-scientists,, that unintelligent forces alone cannot design hearts, eyes, ears, and brains.”
It’s Really Not Rocket Science - Granville Sewell - November 16, 2015 Excerpt: “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”” - Jay Homnick It has never required a PhD in science to understand the key issue in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design. It is blindingly obvious to non-scientists like Jay Homnick that unintelligent forces alone cannot design hearts, eyes, ears, and brains.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/
Moreover, to drive one final nail in JVL’s mathematical coffin, and to repeat what I said earlier in this thread, that fact that we can even apply mathematics to trying to understand the universe in the first place is to be considered, by all rights, a ‘miracle’ in and of itself. And this is according to no less than both Wigner and Einstein.
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt:,, certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
Verse:
Ephesians 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

JVL falsely insists that only he and other die-hard Darwinists, who oppose Dr. Behe, truly understand mathematical probabilities and that ID advocates, like Dr. Behe, (and especially like me), do not really understand the probabilities involved First off, I certainly understand the probabilistic math well enough to follow the arguments being made by each side. Again, I actually had to physically build a PID controller to graduate from tech school As well, 'understanding math' was central in my work as a instrumentation technician in the Chemical industry. i.e. Keeping thousands of process control systems calibrated properly, and running smoothly as a whole. (I literally had to ‘crunch numbers’ all day long in my work). Secondly I hold that JVL is been flat out deceitful about Darwinists understanding mathematical probabilities better than ID advocates do. In fact, I hold that hard-core Darwinists, such as JVL, have no realistic clue about using mathematical probabilities correctly as far as science itself is concerned. JVL listed a few instances of finding mathematically defined probabilities using dice,,,
"what is the probability that rolling two fair, 6-sided dice 20 times you would get both dice coming up 4." "What’s the probability of getting one prime number if you roll a fair 6 sided die four times?" etc..
Yet as "not even wrong" Wolfgang Pauli himself pointed out, when Darwinists use mathematical probabilities they are not using "the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability," (as with dice in JVL's examples), but are instead, "Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity" wherein the word 'chance' becomes "more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf
And without any realistically defined mathematical probabilities, (like we have with JVL's examples of dice), then Darwinists, instead of being "completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ are instead "actually very irrational," (W. Pauli). Thus, although JVL falsely accused me of "bait-and-switch", it is actually JVL himself who is deceitfully 'baiting and switching'. i.e. In regards to mathematical probabilities, JVL, in his appeal to the mathematically defined probabilities of dice, is disingenuously acting like Darwinian evolution is related in some meaningful way to some realistically defined mathematical probabilities. That is simply a completely false impression that JVL is trying to convey. The fact of the matter is that Darwinists "use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability" but use it in a way that is indistinguishable from a claiming that a 'miracle' happened (Pauli). Moreover, it is simply impossible to build a scientific theory without any realistically defined mathematical probabilities. As Murray Eden pointed out in an article entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”, “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible",,,
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” - Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
IOW, directly contrary to JVL's claim that Darwinists understand mathematical probabilities better than ID advocates do, Darwinists NEVER give any realistic mathematical defined probabilities as to the time frame of when it might be reasonable to expect Darwinian processes to produce some biological structure,,, say, producing an eye, a butterfly wing, and/or producing an entire human. As mathematician, (par excellence), Kurt Gödel himself stated, “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
“The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” - Kurt Gödel
Moreover, Homoplasy, (and/or what is often deceitfully called 'convergent evolution' by Darwinists), greatly exasperates this problem that Darwinists have with finding realistically defined mathematical probabilities for their theory, "(e.g., eyes 'evolved' 45 times independently, and bioluminiscence 27 times;,,,)"
Extinct Four-Eyed Monitor Lizard Busts Myth of a Congruent Nested Hierarchy - Günter Bechly - April 23, 2018 Excerpt: Homoplasy is now recognized as a ubiquitous phenomenon (e.g., eyes evolved 45 times independently, and bioluminiscence 27 times; hundreds of more examples can be found at Cambridge University’s “Map of Life” website). https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/extinct-four-eyed-monitor-lizard-busts-myth-of-a-congruent-nested-hierarchy/
As Bernard d'Abrera explains, "For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,,"
Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, ,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html
Moreover, although JVL falsely claimed that Dr. Behe was not qualified to truly understand the mathematical probabilities involved since he was only a chemist, and is not a (evolutionary) biologist and/or a mathematician, the fact of the matter is that Dr. Behe's straightforward, and empirically derived, results for the probabilities involved are in general agreement with several other lines of empirical, and mathematical, evidence, Specifically, Dr. Behe found that, "(By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations where at least one step consists of intermediates that are deleterious, plus a modest selection coefficient of, say, 1 in 10^3 to 1 in10^4. Those factors will get you in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^20.) *Any adaptive biological feature requiring a mutational pathway of twice that complexity (that is, 4-6 mutations with the intermediate steps being deleterious) is unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes during the history of life on Earth.,,,"
Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014 Excerpt: *Any particular adaptive biochemical feature requiring the same mutational complexity as that needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria is forbiddingly unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes and fixed in the population of any class of large animals (such as, say, mammals), because of the much lower population sizes and longer generation times compared to that of malaria. (By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations where at least one step consists of intermediates that are deleterious, plus a modest selection coefficient of, say, 1 in 10^3 to 1 in10^4. Those factors will get you in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^20.) *Any adaptive biological feature requiring a mutational pathway of twice that complexity (that is, 4-6 mutations with the intermediate steps being deleterious) is unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes during the history of life on Earth.,,, What’s more, Nicholas White’s factor of 1 in 10^20 already has built into it all the ways to evolve chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum. In the many malarial cells exposed to chloroquine there have surely occurred all possible single mutations and probably all possible double mutations — in every malarial gene — yet only a few mutational combinations in pfcrt are effective. In other words, mutation and selection have already searched all possible solutions of the entire genome whose probability is greater than 1 in 10^20, including mutations to other genes. The observational evidence demonstrates that only a handful are effective. There is no justification for arbitrarily inflating probabilistic resources by citing imaginary alternative evolutionary routes. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/guide_of_the_pe089161.html
And that, (unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes during the history of life on Earth), empirical finding of Dr. Behe is in general agreement with what Doug Axe and Ann Gauger empirically found, i.e. "The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe."
New Paper from Biologic Institute, "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" Ann Gauger - January 1, 2015 We went on to test for cooption the two most likely enzymes by generating two-base combinations of mutations. After testing 70 percent of all possible two-base mutations for each enzyme, or about 40 million cells each, that also failed. What does this mean? In an evolutionary scenario, to get an enzyme to switch functions the first step is to make a spare copy that can be mutated without destroying a function the cell needs. Second, the cell has to overproduce the mutating enzyme, because any newly emerging enzyme will be very bad at the job at first. To compensate there will need to be lots of enzyme around. Third, there is the problem of finding the right combination of mutations by random search. Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year/
And Behe's straightforward empirical finding is also in general agreement with the mathematics of population genetics. Dr. Sanford, who's credentials in genetics are impeccable, (i.e. he invented the 'gene gun' and taught at Cornell for 20 years), found, via population genetics, that, "the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer),, the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years,,, Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect),,, When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years."
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population - 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
And is also in general agreement with what Durrett and Schmidt themselves found, i.e. "You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect."
More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes,, in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/
bornagain77_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

JVL, you just confirmed my intent to take up the marginalisation game in my next OP. In due course, ASAP. I beg to first remind you that arguments have three main levers of persuasion, pathos, ethos, logos. The most persuasive is emotions, and Ari duly noted that our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not as those we make when we are pained and hostile; which is an obvious factor in the polarisation over ID. Going into details, our emotions are no better than the quality of underlying expectations and judgements; which of course are prone to become warped by crooked yardstick principles and commitments. A big part of objectivity, then, is filtering out such biases by appropriate warrant, an issue that has been gone over in enough detail to show why we need such filters. Second, we come to the credibility or authority of a presenter or source (and I extend to, a witness), where no authority or witness or presenter exceeds the value of his facts, logic and underlying assumptions -- and let us bear in mind that 99.9+% of arguments depend on authorities starting with the dictionary and the first level textbooks, authors and teachers we all started from. All of this points to the least rhetorically persuasive form of appeal, but the only one that actually has power to warrant, weight of merits on fact, logic and start-point premises: fact, logic, startpoints. Thus, first principles and duties of right reason, rightly followed and applied. Here, I note how you loaded up on a no true scotsman fallacy, by using "Chemist," rather than what even the tendentious Wikipedia's hit piece has to concede at outset: BIO-Chemist, i.e. knowledgeable on the chemistry involved in cellular and higher bodily processes, thus intimately familiar with the molecular biology and associated chemical interactions. Which, are key to his claims. Where, given the hostility of some of his colleagues, it is highly relevant to note, too, a career achievement he lists: "[he is] Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania." He is clearly standing on his crease as an effective batsman, whether scoring or defending his wicket. Your attempt to marginalise and taint by implying that here is some weekend windball dabbler going up against a Test Team thus fails, fails in a way that exposes your own biases and unreliability. Your credibility just took a big hit. Your ad hominem attempt to attack me also collapses. Where, any fair person will agree that consistently, I have focussed on the substance of the argument, making a note on credibility as appropriate, as I did just above with Wikipedia, using principle of embarrassment, here a concession against known tendentiousness and ideological interest. When it comes to the ideological imposition, your quarrel is not with me, try Lewontin as just one striking case in point -- and a case you must know given longtime engagement here, so you have set up and knocked over a strawman also:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of acknowledged manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
(Do you want me to give further cases in point, I can. You need to withdraw your ad hominem; which is well below your usual level of participation.) Back on the core matter, Behe's claims including the one being objected to are about molecules and their interactions, accidents etc: mutations. He is on his crease. Here, too, he is effectively using a 5th form first unit of probability point that with a composite event E made up of components e1 and e2 . . . en, where there is reason to see these as independent, P(E) = p1 x p2 x . . . pn. Mutations and their locations in biomolecules are going to be effectively independent of one another and it seems we are looking at a composite effect conferring drug resistance. Going on, you are likely implying onward the dubiousness of Behe's main thesis, irreducible complexity and the minimal likelihood that such would come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. I have always found the objections to that dubious, for cause. For example, let us consider Menuge's five criteria:
IC is a barrier to the usual suggested counter-argument, co-option or exaptation based on a conveniently available cluster of existing or duplicated parts. For instance, Angus Menuge has noted that:
For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:
C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function. C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time. C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.
( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)
In short, the co-ordinated and functional organisation of a complex system is itself a factor that needs credible explanation. However, as Luskin notes for the iconic flagellum, “Those who purport to explain flagellar evolution almost always only address C1 and ignore C2-C5.” [ENV.]
So, the matter is back to where it should always have been, that odds of 1 in 10^20 established empirically lead to 1 in 10^40 for a composite result. And to begin with, 1 in 10^20 or for that matter plausible rates for multicellular forms, together with the required cumulative information to create novel body plans, rapidly run into the requirement for coherent, coordinated information rich functionality from molecules to gross anatomy, tied back into reproduction [so DNA and cell structure], thus yielding deeply isolated islands of function in vast configuration spaces. Those islands start as you should know, with protein fold domains in AA sequence space, the stepping stones just aren't there to bridge the gaps. Thus, there is no plausible blind chance and mechanical necessity observationally anchored explanation for OoL, requiring D/RNA of 100 - 1,000 kbases much less body plans each requiring 10 - 100+ million bases. Hugely beyond the blind search capacity of the only actually observed universe, ours. There is no observed dynamic-stochastic blind mechanism observed to be able to get to OoL much less origin of body plans. But routinely, FSCO/I is observed to come about by design. Where, from von Neumann, we know that kinematic self replication requires huge additional complexity involving stored tape info and effector mechanisms with availability of parts. This points to the massive integrated complexity of the biochemistry of metabolism. Which also comes back to Behe being on crease. So, whatever the imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat may wish to impose there is no contest on the merits. Blind mechanisms have failed and design is the natural reasonable alternative. Notice, for record, the defaults are blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. It is their failure that warrants an inference on sign to design. In my case, I note that it is beyond dispute true that D/RNA involves considerable coded information, thus language. That code in part expresses algorithms for assembling of AA sequences for proteins, i.e. stepwise, finite, halting goal directed processes. Such are not matters of biology as such, but information, communication and cybernetics. They are also clearly diagnostic of just one empirically warranted cause, intelligently directed configuration. That settles the matter. Design best explains OoL and OoBP. Absent entrenched ideology, that would have been settled decades ago. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2022
February
02
Feb
10
10
2022
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply