Thursday, March 18, John Lennox Webinar: Has Science Buried God?

Thus, even though Moran, (and Graur), used unrealistically optimistic estimates for deleterious to beneficial mutations in his calculation, Moran was still only able to calculate that 10% of the genome may be functional. Moreover, these leading Darwinists insisted that most of the genome must be junk in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary from ENCODE, and from other sources

Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? - Casey Luskin - July 13, 2015 Excerpt: no publication shook this (ID vs Darwin) debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."3 Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent."4 Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function."5 A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."6,,, Evolutionists Strike Back Darwin defenders weren't going to take ENCODE's data sitting down.,,, How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm--and by personally attacking, (i.e. ad hominem), those who challenge their position.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html New Book on "Junk DNA" Surveys the Functions of Non-Coding DNA - April 29, 2015 Excerpt: Carey,, goes on to explain how today we now believe that, far from being irrelevant, it's the "junk DNA" that is running the whole show: "The other shock from the sequencing of the human genome was the realisation that the extraordinary complexities of human anatomy, physiology, intelligence and behaviour cannot be explained by referring to the classical model of genes. In terms of numbers of genes that code for proteins, humans contain pretty much the same quantity (around 20,000) as simple microscopic worms. Even more remarkably, most of the genes in the worms have directly equivalent genes in humans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/a_new_book_on_j095611.html

,,, and Dan Graur and Larry Moran also held DNA to be mostly junk in spite of the fact that DNA is now known to be, by far, the most efficient information storage device known to man,,,

Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute - video https://vimeo.com/47615970 Quote from preceding video: "The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute Demonstrating, Once Again, the Fantastic Information-Storage Capacity of DNA - January 29, 2013 Excerpt: researchers led by molecular biologists Nick Goldman and Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) in Hinxton, UK, report online today in Nature that they've improved the DNA encoding scheme to raise that storage density to a staggering 2.2 petabytes per gram, three times the previous effort.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/how_do_you_peta068641.html Storing information in DNA - Test-tube data - Jan 26th 2013 Excerpt: Dr Goldman’s new scheme is significant in several ways. He and his team have managed to set a record (739.3 kilobytes) for the amount of unique information encoded. But it has been designed to do far more than that. It should, think the researchers, be easily capable of swallowing the roughly 3 zettabytes (a zettabyte is one billion trillion or 10²¹ bytes) of digital data thought presently to exist in the world and still have room for plenty more. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21570671-archives-could-last-thousands-years-when-stored-dna-instead-magnetic Scientists Have Stored a Movie, a Computer OS, and an Amazon Gift Card in a Single Speck of DNA "The highest-density data-storage device ever created." - PETER DOCKRILL - 7 MAR 2017 Excerpt: In turn, Erlich and fellow researcher Dina Zielinski from the New York Genome Centre now say their own coding strategy is 100 times more efficient than the 2012 standard, and capable of recording 215 petabytes of data on a single gram of DNA. For context, just 1 petabyte is equivalent to 13.3 years' worth of high-definition video, so if you feel like glancing disdainfully at the external hard drive on your computer desk right now, we won't judge. http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-stored-a-movie-a-computer-os-and-an-amazon-gift-card-in-a-single-speck-of-dna

Thus Darwinists such as Dan Graur, Larry Moran, (and apparently Seversky), are still claiming that the vast majority of DNA is junk in spite of the fact that there are now very strong empirical reasons for believing DNA to virtually 100% functional. i.e. Darwinists are, apparently, still very much in 'science denial' when it comes to the importance of information in DNA.bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

04:17 AM

4

04

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

As John Sanford further outlined in his book ‘Genetic Entropy’ and in the following paper, the unselectable 'near neutral' mutations, which Dr Moran classified as being 'perfectly neutral' in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time instead of being classified as perfectly neutral.,,,

Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 – Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010 Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy by Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: For deleterious mutations, Kimura and most other population geneticists agree the distribution is essentially exponential. Figure 3c in my book (based upon Kimura) shows an exponential-type distribution of deleterious mutations, with most deleterious mutations being ‘nearly-neutral’ and hence un-selectable (effectively neutral). But, as I point out, Kimura’s picture is not complete, because degeneration is all about the ratio of good to bad mutations. Kimura does not show the beneficial distribution, which is essential to the question of net gain versus net loss! When I show the beneficial distribution (while Kimura did not do this, I suspect he would have drawn it much as I did), anyone can see the problem: the vast majority of beneficial mutations will be un-selectable (Figure 3d). Scott does not appear to contest my representation of the mutational effect distribution, which is the main issue here. Scott should easily be able to see that most mutations fall within the ‘no-selection zone’ and that almost all of them are deleterious. So even with strong selection, this entire zone can only undergo degeneration. Outside this zone, the substantially bad mutations will be selected away, and an occasional rare high-impact beneficial will be amplified (which can explain isolated events such as antibiotic resistance). http://creation.com/genetic-entropy Kimura's Distribution http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p091/c09164/9164-diagram-3c-lge-white.jpg Correct Distribution http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p091/c09164/9164-diagram-3d-lge-white.jpg Design, Information and The Word of God - Dr. Andy McIntosh (59:27 minute mark) - video https://youtu.be/YMs1iY6yM9M?t=3567

In the following article, Dr Sanford states, “It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations.,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are.”

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

Even the rare beneficial mutations that we know about should, in reality be classified as deleterious mutations. As Michael Behe stated in the following paper,, we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

This extreme rarity of beneficial mutations extends to studies of mutations in humans,,, In the following paper, Dr. Sanford states,,,,, "Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all.", and " Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!"

Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.]. African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare! http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

Thus, Moran's own estimate for deleterious to beneficial mutations was seriously off and therefore, according to his own calculations from population genetics, the genome, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, would be predicted to 100% junk DNA from the mathematics of population genetics. I have a question for Darwinists, con you build anything useful with 0% functionality?bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

04:15 AM

4

04

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In regards to this claim,

13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

To that claim Seversky responds thusly, "Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. How else do you explain that the humble onion has a much larger genome than that of human beings? The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case and using a far too elastic understanding of “function”. Theism said nothing at all about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’" Well first off, and directly contrary to what Seversky claimed about Theism saying nothing about the existence of DNA, Christianity specifically 'predicted' that life, (and even the entire universe), are 'information theoretic' in their foundational basis. Moreover, the Christian claim that life is 'information theoretic' in its foundational basis is not hidden somewhere in some obscure verse of the Bible but is found front and center at the very beginning of the creation account of John.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Whereas, on the other hand, reductive materialism is actually the worldview that certainly did not say anything about the existence of DNA. Nor did reductive materialism even remotely expect it. Shoot, up until a few years ago, many atheists on UD, (some 50 to 60 years after the discovery of DNA), would still trying to claim that their use of the word 'information' was 'just a metaphor' and that life, at its foundational basis, was really just 'complicated chemistry'.

Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 ?Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521802932&ss=exc Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 “The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” (Let me provide the unstated conclusion:) But they don’t. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/living-things-machines-and-intelligent-design-part-two-of-a-response-to-the-smithy/#comment-353336 "And at this point, strangely enough, the discovery of DNA, which is so widely thought to prove that life is mere chemistry, provides the missing link for proving the contrary. That the formation of a DNA molecule is embodied in the morphology of the corresponding offspring, assures us of the fact that this morphology is not the product of a chemical equilibration, but is designed by other than chemical forces." Michael Polanyi, “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry,” Chemical and Engineering News 45 (August 1967): 66, 55-66

As late as 2015, Stephen Meyer was still being forced to defend against the false claim from Atheistic materialists that information in the cell was 'just a metaphor'. As Dr. Meyer stated in the following article defending 'the fact that life is information theoretic in its foundational basis, "Describing the gene expression system as an information processing system is not to employ a metaphor."

Denying the Signature: Functional Information Is the Fact to Be Explained - Stephen C. Meyer - November 19, 2015 Excerpt: As my colleague Casey Luskin has established, no serious biologist post-Watson and Crick has denied that DNA and RNA contain functional information expressed in a digital form -- information that directs the construction of functional proteins (and editing of RNA molecules). Thus, contra Bishop and O'Connor, my characterization of DNA and RNA as molecules that store functional or specified information is not even remotely controversial within mainstream biology. Nor is my judgment controversial that the gene expression system (the system by which proteins are synthesized in accord with the information stored on the DNA molecule) constitutes an information processing system. That is what the network of proteins and RNA molecules involved in the gene-expression system do: They process (that is copy, translate, and express) the information stored within the DNA molecule. The information processing systems present in the cell may well be much more precise than those that human computer engineers have designed, but that does not mean that describing the gene expression system as an information processing system is inaccurate. Describing the gene expression system as an information processing system is not to employ a metaphor. It is to describe what the system does -- again, to process (or express) genetic information. ,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/denying_the_sig_2101021.html

Thus, not only did Seversky's materialistic worldview not predict DNA, but Seversky's materialistic worldview, decades after DNA was discovered, was actually denying the reality of the information in DNA and was still trying to call it a 'metaphor'.,,, i.e. Their denial of the reality of information in biology was in fact a clear example of being in complete 'science denial' of the facts, which is something that Darwinists often try to accuse Christians of being in. Moreover, Seversky is correct to say that Darwinian materialism still predicts junk DNA. In fact, they are forced to predict Junk DNA because of the mathematics of population genetics.

The slow, painful death of junk DNA - Robert W. Carter - 2009 Background Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane5 and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura6 developed the idea of “neutral evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional. It should be free to mutate over time without needing to be shaped by natural selection. In this way, natural selection could act on the important bits and neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest. Since natural selection will not act on neutral traits, which do not affect survival or reproduction, neutral evolution can proceed through random drift without any inherent “cost of selection”.8 The term “junk DNA” originated with Ohno,9 who based his idea squarely on the idea of neutral evolution. To Ohno and other scientists of his time, the vast spaces (introns)between protein-coding genes were (exons) just useless DNA whose only function was to separate genes along a chromosome. Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma. Without it, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. Junk DNA necessary for evolution Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_12-13.pdf

In fact, due to the mathematics of population genetics, Darwinists are, (unbelievably), forced to predict that upwards to 90% of DNA must be junk:

Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur - Larry Moran - July 14, 2017 Excerpt: I've discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,, Let's look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That's the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome. But that limit is quite unreasonable. It's more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle). Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it's clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that's mostly junk DNA. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/07/revisiting-genetic-load-argument-with.html

Of note, I hold Moran's 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA (if Darwinian evolution were actually true) , and according to his own calculation, should actually be much higher (much worse) than his 90% estimate,,, As John Sanford stated in his book 'Genetic Entropy'

"Moreover, there is strong theoretical reasons for believing there is no truly neutral nucleotide positions. By its very existence, a nucleotide position takes up space, affects spacing between other sites, and affects such things as regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding, and nucleosome building. If a nucleotide carries absolutely no (useful) information, it is, by definition, slightly deleterious, as it slows cell replication and wastes energy.,, Therefore, there is no way to change any given site without some biological effect, no matter how subtle." - John Sanford - Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome - pg. 21 - Inventor of the 'Gene Gun'

bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

04:13 AM

4

04

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I mean, what is going on with some NDEs, like the one Pam Reynolds had? How is an immaterial consciousness observing the same "external" world as physically instantiated people with supposedly physical senses and brains? The science has shown that whatever is going on, our sensory organs and our brains are not comprised of "matter." So, sensory information cannot be said to be instantiated in the 'matter" of our sensory organs and brain. Many NDE's drive this point home; whatever is happening is not, cannot be the result of information being transmitted and translated via physical processes and mediums, because there is nothing there for it to be instantiated on or transferred through. There is literally nothing material, nothing locally "real" there to allow this kind of thing to happen. The only thing that makes sense is that the NDE experiencer and the physical people in the situation are directly accessing and processing the same information as matching mental experiences, with their consciousnesses.William J Murray

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

03:43 AM

3

03

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77, It's comments of yours like at #67 that leave me wondering why you seem to have such a resistance to MRT. I mean, it's all right there - you (as usual) so eloquently sum the evidence up. Information is an abstract entity that can only exist as information in mind, and that's exactly what science has demonstrated all of our experiences of a physical world to be comprised of; selected (observed) and processed information. Not "coming from" or "instantiated in" a supposed material world; just information itself. The "material world" is a set of experiences that occur as the result of consciousness mentally interacting with abstract information, not material entities containing information. Experiments have shown that the latter cannot be the case. Thus, MRT. I don't know how more obvious it can be be made, or what further evidence would make it more conclusive. The logic and the evidence point to the same thing, whether one uses deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning: existence is necessarily, entirely, and now provably mental in nature. There's just no way around it.William J Murray

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

02:26 AM

2

02

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

corrected link: History of the Atom – timeline image http://thehistoryoftheatom.weebly.combornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

06:52 PM

6

06

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

To revisit this comment by Seversky where he denigrated regarding information as fundamental,

“Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

To be clear with what Seversky is talking about,

reify - definition to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)

It might hurt Seversky's feelings to know this, but atoms themselves, the very things that lie at the basis of his reductive materialistic, and Atheistic, worldview, themselves lack any real 'concrete' substance. In fact, atoms themselves are now found to be ethereal, non-concrete, even abstract, in their foundational essence. Shoot, prior to measurement in quantum mechanics, atoms are shown to not even exist at all. As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, ""It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," and as the researcher added, ""Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,"

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html

And as Anton Zeilinger stated in the following interview, "there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don't know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This "nonexistence" is an objective feature of reality.,,,"

Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics - video - 2018 (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA 40 sec: Every object has to be in a definite place is not true anymore.,,, The thought that a particle can be at two places at the same time is (also) not good language. The good language is that there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don't know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This "nonexistence" is an objective feature of reality.,,, 5:10 min:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,

Now this 'nonexistence' of a particle being an objective feature of reality certainly sounds pretty doggone abstract, non-concrete', and ethereal to me. But where is the atom prior to measurement? Well, according to quantum mechanics, prior to measurement the atom is mathematically defined as existing in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space which takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly. Now that mathematical description of the atom prior to measurement certainly sounds very much like the atom, though not existing in the physical realm, is existing in the omnipresent and omniscient Mind of God prior to measurement. But even putting that fascinating fact about atoms not existing prior to measurement to one side, and if we dive down into atom itself, after measurement, when it can be said that the atom has a definite location in the universe, then the atom still has very much a 'non-concrete', abstract, and ethereal quality to it. As Bernardo Kastrup states in the following article, "as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,"

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Although Seversky, as a reductive materialist, may be clinging to a 19th and early 20th century construct of atoms, in which atoms were thought to be concrete little billiard balls, that billiard ball construct of atoms has now long been known to be false conception of atoms. Instead of a billiard ball model of atoms, we now have a far more ethereal quantum cloud model of atoms, as you can see on this timeline that depicts how our models of atoms have changed over time:

History of the Atom - timeline image http://wsc11sci.wikispaces.com/file/view/atom_history.png/297878088/640x480/atom_history.png

As well in this modern picture of atoms, you can see for yourself that atoms are far more ethereal and 'non-concrete' than was originally depicted in our early billiard ball model of atoms:

Depiction of a 'non-particle' atom, http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/stm15.jpg

As well, in the following video, at the 24:31 minute mark, you can see close up pictures of atoms that clearly get this 'ethereal', i.e. non-concrete', point about atoms across.

Discovering Science: Uncertain Principles - video - 24:31 minute mark https://youtu.be/iu6kqO4L0KQ?t=1471

Moreover, Dr Granville Sewell, who is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso, and who has studied the Schroedinger equation in detail, states that 'If the elementary particles interacted by bouncing off each other like tiny balls obeying classical Newtonian laws, chemistry would be dead.,,,'

The Fundamental Equation of Chemistry Is Itself Fine-Tuned - Granville Sewell - January 13, 2015 Excerpt: the fundamental equation of chemistry, the Schroedinger equation, is itself critical for life.,,, For example, the figure at the top of this post is a contour surface plot of the probability distribution for one energy state of an electron orbiting two protons, from Fitzgerald and Sewell 2000, which was obtained by solving the Schroedinger equation using my PDE solver, PDE2D.,,, If the elementary particles interacted by bouncing off each other like tiny balls obeying classical Newtonian laws, chemistry would be dead.,,, Are we to assume that in all these other universes there are still electromagnetic and nuclear forces, electrons, protons, and neutrons, and the behavior of the particles is still governed by the Schroedinger equation; but the forces, masses and charges, and Planck's constant, have different values, generated by some cosmic random number generator?,,, The fundamental equation of chemistry appears to itself be fine-tuned. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_fundamental_1092661.html

And as Werner Heisenberg himself stated, “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.” - Werner Heisenberg (1962). “Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science”, Harpercollins College Div.)

And as Werner Heisenberg himself further stated, "I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language."

"I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language." Werner Heisenberg - Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34

This 'non-concrete', abstract, and ethereal, nature of atoms puts the die-hard materialist, (such as Seversky), in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains in his article, to make sense of this non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,, Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,, As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism. - ibid

Or to put the situation that quantum mechanics has presented to us much more simply, and as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.” – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

Thus in conclusion, Seversky tried to disparage the fact that many prominent quantum physicists today hold immaterial information to be the foundational 'stuff' of the universe from which everything else is made by calling it "the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness". Yet, in irony of ironies, it turns out that the only 'misplaced concreteness' in the situation has been with Seversky's own materialistic conception of atoms. There simply is nothing concrete about atoms to which Seversky can base his concept of 'concreteness' . Atoms, the further down we dive into them, simply dissolve into a realm of pure abstractions. As far as science is concerned, and to repeat what Heisenberg stated, "Atoms are not things.” Verse:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

06:03 PM

6

06

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky, it does sound a bit like “I think thou dost protest too much”. :)Steve Alten2

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

05:24 PM

5

05

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I'm flattered. 37,972 words in 27 posts to answer my one post responding to your oft-posted list of the alleged prediction failures of naturalism/materialism. Is this a record?Seversky

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

05:02 PM

5

05

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky objected to the concept of being made in the 'image of God', yet the entire concept of being made in 'the image of God' lay at the foundation of modern science itself. The Christian founders of modern science held that God created this universe, and that therefore there was a rational order behind this universe, and that we therefore, being made in the 'image of God', could dare grasp and understand the rationality with which God had created this universe. As Paul Davies explained,

“All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.” – Paul Davies

Perhaps the clearest example of how the Christian founders of modern science thought about the universe, and their role in it, is the following quote by Kepler which he made shortly after discovering the mathematical laws of planetary motion.

"O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!" Johannes Kepler - In book five of The Harmonies of the World (1619)

Kepler also stated that,

“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler

Likewise Galileo stated that,

“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” - Galileo Galilei

And this is not just some archaic Christian belief that is relegated to medieval Christian Europe. To this day the applicability of mathematics to the universe is considered a 'miracle'. In fact, both Eugene Wigner, (who's insights into quantum mechanics continue to drive breakthroughs in quantum mechanics), and Albert Einstein, (who formulated General Relativity), are on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe to be a 'miracle'. (Einstein even went so far as to chastise 'professional atheists' in the process of calling it a 'miracle').

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

And our ability to do mathematics is simply inexplicable in a Darwinian view of things. As Berlinski noted, ""Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate a unexpected ability to play the violin."

"Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate a unexpected ability to play the violin. This is a question that Darwinian biology has not yet answered." - David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion - page 16

And as Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer of Natural Selection, noted, "The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation."

“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.,,, ,,, for those who have eyes to see and minds accustomed to reflect, in the minutest cells, in the blood, in the whole earth, and throughout the stellar universe--our own little universe, as one may call it--there is intelligent and conscious direction; in a word, there is Mind." ,,, (Wallace) shook his head and smiled amiably upon the hotheadedness of Darwinians. "The scales on the wings of a moth," he said quietly, "have no explanation in Evolution. They belong to Beauty, and Beauty is a spiritual mystery. Even Huxley was puzzled by the beauty of his environment. What is the origin of Beauty? Evolution cannot explain." — Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, - 1910

To this day Darwinists still have no clue how man gained his unique mathematical and linguistic abilities. In 2014, a group of leading Darwinian experts, in this area of language research, authored a paper in which they honestly stated that they have "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"

Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html

The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;

“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, sharks, etc.., nevertheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, more specifically, infuse immaterial information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also merely for our pleasure. What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates. I guess a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. And that just so happens to be precisely the proof that is claimed within Christianity.

Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing stronger. (Timeline of facts) - November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

Verses & Music

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Passion - Come As You Are (Live) ft. Crowder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE6QXWFL6jY

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

11:52 AM

11

11

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

And here are a few notes that link together information, thermodynamics and an observer. As the following article states, “when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. ”

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011 Excerpt: The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

And as the following article states, “James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, That statement is simply fascinating, and for anybody involved in the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate, that statement should send chills down their scientific spine. Entropy is considered to be very foundational to every action that we may observe in the universe, In fact, Eddington said that entropy holds "the supreme position among the laws of Nature."

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

And as the following article states, "It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,"

Shining Light on Dark Energy - October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, https://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

So for the researchers to now experimentally verify that "“Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.” is to bring information, and the observer, into any foundational definition of reality to we may conceive of. Thus, contrary to whatever Seversky wants to believe in his reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, Information IS now experimentally proven to be a 'physical' entity in that it is now shown to have causal effects on the material realm at the most fundamental level of reality, and it is therefore certainly not merely imaginary and abstract, nor is it simply 'emergent' from a material basis, but immaterial information is indeed now experimentally shown to have a tangible physical effect upon the material realm at the most foundational level of physical reality of entropy itself. And thus Information, directly contrary to what Seversky claimed, is definitely not being 'reified' when quantum physicists say that information is the primary 'stuff' from which everything else is made. When quantum physicists say that information is the fundamental stuff from which everything else is made, they are simply following their experimental research where it leads them. And it leads them to the conclusion that information is the fundamental 'stuff' of the physical universe. Quotes and verse

"I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits. It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." - John Wheeler https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/ "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf? “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” (48:35 minute mark) “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark) Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984 John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

09:29 AM

9

09

29

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In regards to this,

12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

To that Seversky responds thusly, "Imago dei is a Christian not just a theistic concept and its meaning is conveniently vague. Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc? Does it mean we resemble Him psychologically so He is also capable of rage, jealousy, vindictiveness? That, at least, would be consistent with some of His behavior as described in the Bible. “Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness. Well first off in regards to Seversky false claim that information is being reified

reify to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)

Information is NOT just some abstract idea that has no 'concrete' effect on the material world. In other words, contrary to what Seversky wants to believe in his reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, Information IS physical and it is neither imaginary and abstract, nor is it 'emergent' from a material basis. Landauer held information to be physical because it always took energy to erase it from a computer. (Landauer's principle) In fact Landauer said that Roger Penrose's contention that information has an existence independent of matter and energy was a quote unquote 'quaint notion'.

Information is a Physical Entity - Rolf Landauer Excerpt: Information is inevitably inscribed in a physical medium. It is not an abstract entity. It can be denoted by a hole in a punched card, by the orientation of a nuclear spin, or by the pulses transmitted by a neuron. The quaint notion that information has an existence independent of its physical manifestation is still seriously advocated [6],,, [6] R. Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.192.2928&rep=rep1&type=pdf "Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and "computer independent" existence of its own." - Roger Penrose - The Emperor's New Mind - Pg 147

Likewise Norbert Weiner also held that "Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. “

“The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile,” as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. “ - Weiner

Yet contrary to what Landauer and other materialists may believe, there is much evidence that now establishes the physical reality of immaterial information which is independent of matter and energy. As Vaccaro explained in the following article,“Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”

Scientists show how to erase information without using energy – January 2011 Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all.,,, “Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”, Vaccaro explained. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-scientists-erase-energy.html

And in the following 2010 experiment, Japanese scientists were finally able to experimentally realize the 'Maxwell demon' thought experiment and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information."

Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html

As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the 'equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information', stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform

In short, and as the following review article states, "information, entropy, and energy should (now) be treated on equal footings."

Information: From Maxwell’s demon to Landauer’s eraser – Lutz and Ciliberto – Oct. 25, 2015 – Physics Today Excerpt: The above examples of gedanken-turned-real experiments provide a firm empirical foundation for the physics of information and tangible evidence of the intimate connection between information and energy. They have been followed by additional experiments and simulations along similar lines.12 (See, for example, Physics Today, August 2014, page 60.) Collectively, that body of experimental work further demonstrates the equivalence of information and thermodynamic entropies at thermal equilibrium.,,, (2008) Sagawa and Ueda’s (theoretical) result extends the second law to explicitly incorporate information; it shows that information, entropy, and energy should be treated on equal footings. http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Information.pdf J. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa. Thermodynamics of information. Nature Physics, 11:131-139, 2015.

The Maxwell demon thought experiment has also now even been extended to build a refrigerator that is powered purely by information.

New Scientist astounds: Information is physical – May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world. - per uncommon descent

Here are a few more notes along that line:

Matter, energy… knowledge: - May 11, 2016 Running a brain-twisting thought experiment for real shows that information is a physical thing – so can we now harness the most elusive entity in the cosmos? https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030730-200-demon-no-more-physics-most-elusive-entity-gives-up-its-secret/ Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency - Lisa Zyga - January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, The generalized second law of thermodynamics states that the work extracted from an information engine is limited by the sum of two components: the first is the free energy difference between the final and initial states (this is the sole limit placed on conventional engines by the conventional second law), and the other is the amount of available information (this part sets an upper bound on the extra work that can be extracted from information). To achieve the maximum efficiency set by the generalized second law, the researchers in the new study designed and implemented an information engine made of a particle trapped by light at room temperature. Random thermal fluctuations cause the tiny particle to move slightly due to Brownian motion, and a photodiode tracks the particle's changing position with a spatial accuracy of 1 nanometer. If the particle moves more than a certain distance away from its starting point in a certain direction, the light trap quickly shifts in the direction of the particle. This process repeats, so that over time the engine transports the particle in a desired direction simply by extracting work from the information it obtains from the system's random thermal fluctuations (the free energy component here is zero, so it does not contribute to the work extracted). One of the most important features of this system is its nearly instantaneous feedback response: the trap shifts in just a fraction of a millisecond, giving the particle no time to move further and dissipate energy. As a result, almost none of the energy gained by the shift is lost to heat, but rather nearly all of it is converted into work. By avoiding practically any information loss, the information-to-energy conversion of this process reaches approximately 98.5% of the bound set by the generalized second law. The results lend support for this bound, and illustrate the possibility of extracting the maximum amount of work possible from information .https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html What is information? - animated video (May 2016) Quote: “If information is not (physically) real then neither are we” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvIOzVJMCM

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

09:28 AM

9

09

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Here are a few more notes that support the sudden appearance of humans in the fossil record

Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] per evolution news Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism - Jonathan M. - December 9, 2012 Excerpt: "Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied internal methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and paionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable." per evolution news No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013 Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. "None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said. - per science daily

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

06:51 AM

6

06

51

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Since my claim had to do with the fairly recent, and abrupt, appearance of humans in the fossil record, and since Seversky did not even touch on that, but instead tried to falsely claim that we had observational evidence for speciation with Bacteria, I will list a few notes that support my primary claim that humans appeared relatively recently, and suddenly, in the fossil record, and that refute the claim from Darwinists that there are a series of transitional fossils that link us to some hypothetical ape-like common ancestor with apes and/or chimps

“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a) Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - February 25, 2020 Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.” - Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University, “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,, A Big Bang at Man’s Origin? To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that 1. “differences exist on an unusual scale” 2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented” 3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” 4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.” 5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive” 6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.” 7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” 8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.” 9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,, “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,, Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts.... 98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity? Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million). https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/ Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? - Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/

Here is a video playlist of Dr. Giem reviewing John Sanford’s book “Contested Bones”. (All major fossil claims from Darwinists are covered)

“Contested Bones” reviewed by Dr. Paul Giem – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

Moreover, humans are far more anatomically, (and genetically), distinct from apes than Darwinists try to portray to the general public

Why Keith Blanchard really doesn’t understand evolution - August 9, 2014 Excerpt: The anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, which are quite extensive, are conveniently summarized in a handout prepared by Anthropology Professor Claud A. Ramblett the University of Texas, entitled, Primate Anatomy. Anyone who thinks that a series of random stepwise mutations, culled by the non-random but unguided process of natural selection, can account for the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, should read this article very carefully. What it reveals is that an entire ensuite of changes, relating to the skull, teeth, vertebrae, thorax, shoulder, arms, hands, pelvis, legs and feet, not to mention the rate of skeletal maturation and method of locomotion, would have been required, in order to transform the common ancestor of humans and chimps into creatures like ourselves. Given the sheer diversity of changes that would have been required, it is surely reasonable to ask whether an unguided process, such as Darwinian macroevolution, could have accomplished this feat over a period of a few million years. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-keith-blanchard-really-doesnt-understand-evolution/ "We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing: there is no semi-bipedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays only occasionally. The extraordinary originality of our species is not common in the living world. Most species belong to groups of similar ones.,," - Juan Arsuaga (paleoanthropologist) - The Neanderthals Necklace - 2002 - page 3-4 February 2020 – anatomical and genetic dissimilarities between apes and humans far greater than what Darwinists present to the general public: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-texas-m-last-week-theistic-evolutionist-joshua-swamidass-vs-id-proponent-michael-behe/#comment-693556 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-texas-m-last-week-theistic-evolutionist-joshua-swamidass-vs-id-proponent-michael-behe/#comment-693590

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

06:39 AM

6

06

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);

Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html??

Here is part 2 of a podcast with Casey Luskin exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ as a blatant 'literature bluff'??

Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00

In the following article, Darwinists go 0 for 13 in trying to provide proof for evolution

Evolving Icons of Evolution - March 13, 2017 https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/evolving-icons-of-evolution/

Moreover, the main problem for Darwinists is not the fact that they have never demonstrated the origination of a new species in the first place,,, instead the main problem for Darwinists is that they, with their reductive materialistic framework, lack the wherewithal to even define what a species truly is in the first place,

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt: In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Think about it: How is it that we are able to recognize different organisms as belonging to the same group? The Aristotelian provides a good answer: It is because species really exist—not as an abstraction in the sky, but they exist nonetheless. We recognize the squirrel’s form, which it shares with other members of its species, even though the particular matter of each squirrel differs. So each organism, each unified whole, consists of a material and immaterial part (form).,,, Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

To this day, Darwinists still have no clue how the rigidly define a species, In 2019 a Darwinist honestly admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, i.e. Darwinian evolution, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species”, to clearly define what a species actually is in the first place, is a crystal clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper scientific explanation for the “Origin of Species”! The failure to define what a species even is, scientifically speaking, is simply completely embarrassing for Darwinists. It is as if a mathematician tried to do math with no clear definition of what the number 1 actually meant. With its inherent denial of 'true species', 'Alice in Wonderland' turns out to be more of a rigorous scientific theory than Darwinian. evolution can ever possibly be. Verse:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

04:11 AM

4

04

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Moreover, in terms of morphology, billion year old bacteria "surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," and the similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,”

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

Here are a few more references that drive this point home:

AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Scientists find signs of life in Australia dating back 3.48 billion years - Thu November 14, 2013 Excerpt: “We conclude that the MISS in the Dresser Formation record a complex microbial ecosystem, hitherto unknown, and represent one of the most ancient signs of life on Earth.”... “this MISS displays the same associations that are known from modern as well as fossil” finds. The MISS also shows microbes that act like “modern cyanobacteria,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/world/asia/australia-ancient-life/ Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old - 11/11/13 Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages. http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-publications/insideodu/2013/11/11/topstory1

Besides bacteria drastically failing to provide any observation evidence for Darwinian evolution, nor do Darwinists have any observational evidence for speciation anywhere else that they may look.

Blink and You'll Miss It: Jerry Coyne Turns His Attention to the "Engine of Evolution" (Lenski, Lynch, Hall, Antibiotic resistance, Insecticide resistance) - Jonathan M. - December 7, 2012 Excerpt: Coyne fails to address any of the challenges to his view that evolutionary mechanisms are able to accomplish what he requires of them, such as the rarity and isolation of stable protein folds in sequence space (Axe, 2010a; Axe, 2004; Gauger and Axe, 2011), or the mathematical limits of complex adaptation (Axe, 2010b), http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/blink_and_youll2067161.html Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 Excerpt: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade. (but we don't)",,, (“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”) Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) http://www.jstor.org/stable/27856885?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ? Alleged Instances of Observed Speciation -- Evolution's Smoking Gun Is Still Missing - William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells July 1, 2016 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/alleged_instanc102965.html "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp?http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp?

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

04:09 AM

4

04

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

To make this problem for Darwinists all that much worse, ancient bacteria spores recovered from amber crystals and salt crystals, which are tens to hundreds of millions of years old, have been 'revived',,,

Ancient Bacteria - 2008 Excerpt: “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.” http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281961 “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber." - R. Cano http://www.asmscience.org/content/book/10.1128/9781555818128.chap37

,,, And these ancient 'revived' bacteria have been compared to their living descendants of today,,,

Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber - 19 May 1995 Excerpt: Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5213/1060

,,, To the disbelieving shock of Darwinists, “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”

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

Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change, (far less change than was expected from the neo-Darwinian view), that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland's experiment. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by finding some ancient DNA sequences that were completely unique:

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

I wrote an e-mail to Dr. Cano and asked him if he had performed a 'fitness test' on the ancient bacteria he had revived to see if they were more fit than their modern day descendants. He wrote back and said that he had done such a test and that 'we surmised that the putative "ancient",,, isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates” than the modern strain

"We performed such a (fitness) test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the (ancient) amber isolate." RJ Cano and MK Borucki - Fitness test which compared ancient amber sealed bacteria to its modern day descendants

Moreover, the ancient yeast that Dr. Cano had also isolated was also found to be more resilient than modern day yeast in terms of making beer:

Amber Ale: Brewing Beer From 45-Million-Year-Old Yeast - July 20, 2009 Excerpt: Cano,,,brought back to life something that had been trapped in amber for more than 25 million years.,,, Cano identified it as a bacterial spore,,, Ambergene's board of directors decided to confirm Cano's claims of reanimation. "I was very skeptical," says Chip Lambert, a microbiologist tapped by Ambergene to try to duplicate Cano's results. The company provided him with amber and all of Cano's sterilization and extraction protocols. Lambert doubled all of the cleaning processes and added some of his own. He was still able to duplicate Cano's discovery.,,, In April 1995, during his amber-cracking spree, Cano made another important discovery. A piece of fossilized resin from Burma yielded,, brewer's or baker's yeast. Normally, Hackett ends the primary fermentation process by "crashing the tank"—lowering the temperature to shock the yeast into dormancy. But that didn't work on Cano's yeast. "It was just sitting on the bottom and nibbling on the sugar like a couch potato," Hackett says. A strain that had survived 45 million years in suspended animation was not about to go quietly. https://www.wired.com/2009/07/ff-primordial-yeast/

Thus, these ancient bacteria are actually more resilient than their modern day descendents. Exactly the opposite finding one would have expected from a Darwinian perspective.bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

04:08 AM

4

04

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Moreover, the fact that antibiotic resistance was being gained so rapidly in the video should have been a solid clue for the Darwinists that the adaptations to antibiotics are not being generated by random Darwinian processes, as they assume they are, but that antibiotic resistance is already 'programmed' into bacteria. And indeed, contrary to Darwinian thought, it is now found that antibiotic resistance, instead of being an ability that is new for bacteria, is an ability that is ancient. An ability that bacteria have had all along.

Antibiotic resistance is ancient - September 2011 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110922 A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution - September 2011 Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.” http://crev.info/content/110904-a_tale_of_two_falsifications_of_evolution

In fact, one researcher, who found antibiotic resistance in four million year old bacteria, remarked 'that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria and could be billions of years old.'

(Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183# Scientists unlock a 'microbial Pompeii' - February 23, 2014 Excerpt: "...The researchers discovered that the ancient human oral microbiome already contained the basic genetic machinery for antibiotic resistance more than eight centuries before the invention of the first therapeutic antibiotics in the 1940s..." http://phys.org/news/2014-02-scientists-microbial-pompeii.html

As well, instead of antibiotic resistant genes being something new, as Darwinists assume they are, it is now found that 'those vexing (antibiotic resistance) genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them',,,

Antibiotic resistance genes are essentially everywhere - May 8, 2014 Excerpt: The largest metagenomic search for antibiotic resistance genes in the DNA sequences of microbial communities from around the globe has found that bacteria carrying those vexing genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140508121347.htm

Thus, directly contrary to Seversky's claim that bacteria can evolve into new species within a few years, we simply have no direct observational evidence that speculation has ever occurred in bacteria. What we have with bacteria are limited adaptations that deviate from the mean just a little bit, adaptations that come at a 'fitness cost', and with bacteria reverting back to their mean when given the first chance to do so.

“What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” Pierre-Paul Grasse’, a renowned French evolutionist.

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

04:07 AM

4

04

07

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

As Casey Luskin states, '(an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.'

Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology - Casey Luskin - March 8, 2010 Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html Helping an Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - May 3, 2014 Excerpt: ,,, antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to "revert" to their prior forms after the antibacterial drug is removed. This is due to a "fitness cost," which suggests that mutations that allow antibiotic resistance are breaking down the normal, efficient operations of a bacterial cell, and are less "advantageous. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/helping_an_inte085171.html

In other words, it turns out that instead of creating anything new, antibiotic resistant bacteria always degrade or modify some preexisting molecular abilities in order to gain antibiotic resistance. This following site provides a list of some of the degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: Table 1 excerpt: Actinonin - Loss of enzyme activity Ampicillin - SOS response halting cell division Azithromycin - Loss of a regulatory protein Chloramphenicol - Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein Ciprofloxacin - Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein Erythromycin - Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein Fluoroquinolones - Loss of affinity to gyrase Imioenem - Reduced formation of a porin Kanamycin - Reduced formation of a transport protein Nalidixic Acid - Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein Rifampin - Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase Streptomycin - Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity Tetracycline - Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein Zittermicin A - Loss of proton motive force http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

In 2016, in a blatant act of dishonesty, Darwinists made a video of bacteria rapidly adapting to higher and higher doses of antibiotics and tried to claim that they have captured 'evolution in action'

Stunning Videos of Evolution in Action - Sept. 8, 2016 The MEGA-plate allows scientists to watch bacteria adapting to antibiotics before their eyes. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/stunning-videos-of-evolution-in-action/499136/

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne went so far as to claim that the video was a 'creationist's nightmare'

The creationist’s nightmare: evolution in action - Jerry Coyne - Sept. 9 2016 Excerpt: Over at the Atlantic, Ed Yong shows and describes some stunning videos of “evolution in action”: in this case bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. It’s a clever way to visualize the accumulation of mutations over time as bacteria evolve to survive increasingly large doses of antibiotics,, https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/evolution-in-action/

Yet, far from being a 'creationist's nightmare', the fact of the matter is that no new information was generated in the rapid adaptations of the bacteria. As the following article explains, " If anything gives us nightmares, it’s not this.,,, Why? Because no newly evolved complex information has been demonstrated."

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria May Be a Health Nightmare, but Not an Evolutionary One - September 9, 2016 Excerpt: If anything gives us nightmares, it’s not this.,,, Why? Because no newly evolved complex information has been demonstrated. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/antibiotic-resi/

And as Michael Behe explained, the “Antibiotic-resistant bacteria demonstrate evolution by breaking stuff,, what we have here is devolution, not evolution, the opposite of what needs to be explained”

Michael Behe: Is That MEGA-Plate Antibiotic Resistance Video Evidence for Evolution, or Devolution? - September 13, 2016 (with podcast) Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria demonstrate evolution by breaking stuff — not by building it and certainly not by creating complex new biological information. On the contrary, information is lost. In other words, says Behe, what we have here is devolution, not evolution, the opposite of what needs to be explained by Darwinian theory. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/michael_behe_is/

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

04:06 AM

4

04

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In réponse to this:

11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

In response to that, Seversky claims, "It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel” (now including COVID-19). If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now." Hmmm, Seversky claims that new species of bacteria can emerge in just a few years? i.e. "new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. Seversky's claim is either blatantly dishonest or woefully ignorant. Perhaps both. First off, if new species of large animals supposedly take hundreds of thousands of years to appear then that pretty much ruins any hope of ever having any direct observational evidence of them speciating. And yet if new species of bacteria can appear in just a few years then we ought to have direct observational evidence of speciation occurring within bacteria. Yet, we don't have any evidence of bacteria evolving into new species. As Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, stated, 'Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,'

Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

Darwinists simply have no evidence that bacteria can evolve into a new species in a few years. Richard Lenski, in his '"Long Term Evolution Experiment", claimed that novel citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli in his experiment was "a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event". Yet Scott Minnich came along and proved that the citrate adaptation in e-coli was as easy to achieve as falling off a log. In other words, the citrate adaptation in e-coli was 'preprogrammed' within the e-coli and was not "a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event" as Lenski had claimed. As Scott Minnich explained, "This (citrate adaptation) was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations.",,, "We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved."

Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. - Minnich - Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416 Re-interpreting Long-Term Evolution Experiments: A Conversation with Dr. Scott Minnich – March 2017 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rpNPzQAMck

In fact, all of the supposedly beneficial mutations that have ever occurred in Lenski's infamous 'Long Term Evolution Experiment' with e-coli can be classified as 'modification-of-function' or 'loss-of-function' mutations

Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information - September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski's research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

In fact, Lenski's e-coli are found to be less fit than the original e-coli that Lenski started off with

Lenski's e-coli - Analysis of Genetic Entropy Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria

What Lenski tried to claim for his e-coli is very similar to what Darwinists try to claim for anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Many times Darwinists will try to claim that antibiotic resistant bacteria are proof that Bacteria are evolving into a brand new species, Yet there is always a 'fitness cost' associated with the bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance that show that the bacteria are losing abilities not gaining them. The following video, at the 2:15 minute mark, shows that there is always a 'fitness cost' associated with bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance.

Investigating Evolution: Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Peboq0AqA

Here is a more recent video on the subject:

Antibiotic Resistance & Bacterial Evolution: What’s the Real Story? (Long Story Short, Ep. 3) – November 2020 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlmgFFBBopM

bornagain77

March 20, 2021

March

03

Mar

20

20

2021

04:05 AM

4

04

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Next Seversky claims that, "Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so transitional fossils have already been found. Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record." Both claims are false. To repeat what I stated at 10:

Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

The fossil record, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, looks nothing like what Darwin predicted for the fossil record. And please don't take my word for it. (as Seversky simply wants us to take his word for his claim). Take the word of all these leading paleontologists

"Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46. "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." - NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., - The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46 “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105. "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.' Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), 'The nature of the fossil record'. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132. "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK) “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.” G.G.Simpson - one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." T. Neville George - Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist - D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467. "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. - Curator of Zoological Collections "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.” Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34. "The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 40. "Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89. "Colin Patterson told me that he was looking for cases where the actual common ancestor of two given species was identified in the diagram on display. These would be at the "nodes" in the tree of life. But all the nodes shown in the museum were vacant. Patterson told me that as far as he could see, nodes are always empty in diagrams of the tree of life.,,," - Tom Bethel Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design - 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

In fact not only does the fossil record fail to conform to Charles Darwin's prediction of gradualism, but the fossil record is actually 'upside down' to what Charles Darwin predicted for it. i.e. Disparity (large differences) preceding diversity (small differences) is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is also found after it as well. In fact it is a defining characteristic of the overall fossil record.

Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.,,, Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" - (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8 In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma? - JonathanM - May 2012 Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/has_the_talk-or059171.html "The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line." Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97. As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, "The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” - February 20, 2018, Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it. In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/

As to Seversky's claim that, "Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record." That claim is simply false. The Bible is very clear about species reproducing "according to their kinds" and species not morphing into completely different species as is predicted in Darwin's theory,

Genesis 1 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.,,, And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

06:30 PM

6

06

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

One more note on the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion simply makes no sense on Darwinian presuppositions. If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be, and diversified, on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most 'mutational firepower', since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and 'mutational firepower'), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins' video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically 'selected' for? As Charles Darwin himself stated.

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;" - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - pg. 66 “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species - page 266

The logic of natural selection is nicely illustrated in the following graph:

The Logic of Natural Selection - graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

Simply put, on a Darwinian view of things, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would all be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or 'eaten', by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since those attributes would obviously slow down successful reproduction. Again, the Cambrian Explosion simply makes no sense on the Darwinian view of things. To repeat what the Doctor told Richard Dawkins, "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" Microorganisms, in terms of reproductive success, should simply be the pinnacle of evolution's creative capacity. There simply is no reason for multicellularity to ever evolve on a Darwinian view of things. And indeed, microorganisms were apparently doing quite well for billions of years prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4

Again, on a Darwinian view of things, the Cambrian Explosion should simply never have happened. Much less should we ourselves exist. Multicellularity of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin's own criteria for his theory, i.e. “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;" Oh well, so much for any hope that Darwin's theory would ever make any logical and reasonable sense.

Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

03:45 PM

3

03

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

To highlight just how bad the problem of protein binding sites are for Darwinists, Dr. Behe, on Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical ‘simple’ cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites in a multicellular creature is, conservatively, 300,000

Largest-Ever Map of Plant Protein Interactions - July 2011 Excerpt: The new map of 6,205 protein partnerings represents only about two percent of the full protein- protein "interactome" for Arabidopsis, since the screening test covered only a third of all Arabidopsis proteins, and wasn't sensitive enough to detect many weaker protein interactions. "There will be larger maps after this one," says Ecker. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728144936.htm

So taking into account that they only covered 2%, of the full protein-protein “interactome” in the plant, then that gives a number, for different protein-protein interactions in the plant, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough ‘back of the envelope’ calculation, we find conservatively that some 300,000 different protein/protein binding sites would have to be generated for each multicellular creature to ’emerge’ from some single cell creature. Therefore, from my very rough calculation, it certainly appears to be a vastly impossible step that unguided ‘bottom up’ material processes cannot possibly make to go from a single cell to a multicellular creature. And please bear in mind, my 'back of the envelope estimate' is a VERY conservative estimate, in reality the situation turns out to be far worse for Darwinists. First off, the alternative splicing patterns are found to very different between species. In fact, "“The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F

And alternative splicing produces strikingly different interaction profiles for proteins. As the following article states, "Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).

Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing - 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf

And recall, Dr. Behe's limit for what evolution could reasonably be expected to accomplish, given the entire history of all life on earth, is just 2 protein binding sites. i.e. 1 in 10^40. To put it mildly, "a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification" is a rather dramatic shortfall for what Darwinian processes are capable of explaining. Thus Seversky's, (and Darwin's) contention that evolution must proceed in "small, incremental steps" is falsified by the empirical evidence itself. Darwinian evolution fails at the most fundamental level possible, i.e. at the level of the origin of proteins and at the level proteins interacting with each other in new ways. Amazingly Seversky, who has been commenting on UD for years, knows all this evidence that I have presented, and yet he proceeds to believe in Darwinian evolution anyway. Go figure, some people simply can't be reasoned with I guess, But anyways, in regards to the Cambrian explosion itself, Seversky goes on to state, "The 13-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion (a rather slow “explosion”) was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis." And yet, contrary to whatever Seversky may want to believe, "None of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record."

"None of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record. This is very significant, because the potential soft-bodied ancestors would surely have been preserved in the numerous Ediacaran fossil localities of the Burgess Shale type (Bechly 2020), or in the Kimberella layers, which after all could preserve the soft-parts of a mollusk-like organism." Günter Bechly - paleontologist - Bechly Series: No Ancestors for Cambrian Animals; Darwin’s Doubt Remains - September 24, 2020 https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/bechly-series-no-ancestors-for-cambrian-animals-darwins-doubt-remains/

As the following article states, "the absence of Ediacaran predecessors to the Cambrian is an established fact of modern paleontology.,,,"

Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 written by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: The Cambrian Explosion, Coyne argues, “is an explosion only in geological terms, and allows for a lot of biological evolution to take place, (after all, modern whales evolved from small terrestrial deerlike organisms in just 12 million years).” This is wrong in its first assertion, it is wrong in its second assertion; and it is wrong all around.,,, ,,, The available window of time for the transition from the terrestrial pakicetids to fully marine basilosaurids (Pelagiceti) is only 4.5 million years.,,, Careless in his facts, Coyne is also careless in his references. There is, for example, the recent study by Wood et al. (2019). It is there, Coyne assures himself, that all those Cambrian antecedents may be found. In fact, this paper contains no evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals. There are reasonable candidates for primitive metazoan lineages, like sponges, ctenophores, and cnidarians, but not a single putative ancestor for any of the 21 Cambrian bilaterian animal phyla. If this is unequivocal, the attribution of the very Ediacaran Dickinsonia to stem metazoan animals is dubious. Had Coyne done a more thorough survey of the paleontological literature himself, he would have discovered that the absence of Ediacaran predecessors to the Cambrian is an established fact of modern paleontology.,,, https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

In short, Charles Darwin's dilemma with the Cambrian explosion has only gotten far worse, not better, since Darwin's time

“to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 308

As the following article honestly stated, “Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ''a major mystery,'' a ''challenge.'' The Theory of Evolution -- exploded again.” Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with."

Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 - July 2009 ?Excerpt: "going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time." ---"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.",,, serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple -- as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt. “Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ''a major mystery,'' a ''challenge.'' The Theory of Evolution -- exploded again.” Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin's contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume -- if Victorian fashion dictated -- that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater.html?

Seversky, in his final sentence, claimed that the Cambrian explosion "was not the original creation event described in Genesis." Well, if it is all the same with you Seversky, we will let unbiased readers decide for themselves if the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion reasonably matches what we see described in Genesis for God's fifth day of creation, shall we?

Genesis 1: 20-23 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Personally, from my Old Earth Creation perspective, I'd certainly call that a pretty good 'rough' fit for what happened in the Cambrian explosionbornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

02:20 PM

2

02

20

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky then states, "The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary considerably. The 13-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion (a rather slow “explosion”) was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis." Well first off, Charles Darwin himself stated that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species - 1860 - pg 189

And that falsification criteria, set forth by Charles Darwin himself, has now been met by both Douglas Axe and Michael Behe. Dr. Axe found that “the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds - Doug Axe - 2004 Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

Dr. Axe's work falls in line with other lines of research verifying the fact that functional proteins are extremely rare.

Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 1, 2012 Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21.,,, These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein.,,, And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences.,,, Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required.,,, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier.,,, These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html?showComment=1354423575480#c6691708341503051454

As the following researcher commented, these odds are impossible.,,, The appearance of early protein families is “something like close to a miracle.” And also noted that “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”

Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: these odds are impossible.,,, Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery. http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins

The implications of this empirical evidence are crystal clear. Charles Darwin's very own falsification criteria of 'slight, successive modifications' has been met at the most fundamental level of 'building block' level of biology, i.e. proteins, and Darwin's theory has now been experimentally falsified. As Dr. Axe stated, ""Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) "If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown." Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It's all a mirage. None of it happens that way."

"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) "If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown." Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It's all a mirage. None of it happens that way." - Douglas Axe - 200 Years After Darwin - What Didn't Darwin Know - video - Part 2 of 2 https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329

And that is just the probability of getting a functional protein in the first place. When we throw the probability of existing proteins binding to one another in new ways then the problems get much worse for Darwinists. In his book "The Edge of Evolution", Dr. Behe estimated, from observational evidence, that the limit for what Darwinian evolution could be expected to accomplish, in terms of building up functional complexity, via proteins binding to one another in new ways, was an event with the probability of happening of 1 in 10^20.

"The number I cite, one parasite in every 10^20 for de novo chloroquine resistance, is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is a statistic, a result, a data point. (Furthermore, it is not my number, but that of the eminent malariologist Nicholas White.) I do not assume that “adaptation cannot occur one mutation at a time”; I assume nothing at all. I am simply looking at the results. The malaria parasite was free to do whatever it could in nature; to evolve resistance, or outcompete its fellow parasites, by whatever evolutionary pathway was available in the wild. Neither I nor anyone else were manipulating the results. What we see when we look at chloroquine-resistant malaria is pristine data — it is the best that random mutation plus selection was able to accomplish in the wild in 10^20 tries." - Michael Behe https://evolutionnews.org/2007/11/rebuttal_to_paul_gross_review/

Moreover, in 2014 Dr. Behe's 1 in 10^20 statistical observation has now been born out empirically.

Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution - Michael Behe - August 20, 2014 Excerpt: In The Edge of Evolution I cited the development of chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum as a very likely real-life example of this phenomenon. The recent paper by Summers et al. confirms that two specific mutations are required to confer upon the protein PfCRT the ability to pump chloroquine, which is necessary but may not be sufficient for resistance in the wild. *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

From this 1 in 10^20 empirical observation, Dr. Behe sets maximum limit to what Darwinian processes could be expected to ever accomplish on the face of earth at "two binding sites in a protein complex", since "the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”

"the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

02:15 PM

2

02

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

. Sev, I was out or a couple of days and did not see your comment at #29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UB: The problem for you, Sev, … is that I am using non-controversial scientific literature and history to demonstrate three undeniable facts: 1) that a high-capacity system of symbols and a set of interpretive constraints (i.e. a language structure) was predicted as the fundamental requirement of any autonomous self-replicator capable of biological evolution, 2) that this prediction was systematically confirmed by experimental result, and 3) exactly what the physics of that system entails. Seversky: Yes, the work of those researchers defined the fundamental requirements of an autonomous self-replicating system.

So you agree that a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints was predicted as the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication, and that this symbol system was confirmed in biology by experiment?

But so what? What are you inferring from that work?

I take the information at face value: a high-capacity symbol system and a set of interpretive constraints were predicted as being fundamental to the system, and were subsequently confirmed by experiment. The presence of life and evolution on this planet is made possible by a symbol system and a language structure. Further, the physical entailments of that system are entirely unique among other physical systems known to science, being found nowhere else except in human language (a universal correlate of intelligence).

Do they claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes?

Making such a claim would constitute a non-falsifiable conclusion. Why should anyone expect a proper research scientist, a physicist for example describing the dynamic properties of the system, to load his or her research with extraneous non-falsifiable conclusions? Your enthusiasm for this question is understandable given your ideological priors. Do you not regularly cast this situation (scientists not making these non-falsifiable conclusions in their research) as support for materialism?

Do you claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes?

No, I do not make those extraneous claims either. Look, Sev, I have criticized you heavily for your constant reliance on non-falsifiable and/or unknowable reasoning in your personal war on ID. Yet, here you are again in this very post, doing it all over again. Read your own words – you are actually championing the use of flawed reasoning. It is like nothing ever gets through the wall you’ve erected around yourself and your relentless bigotry against documented science and history. You can’t demand the logically impossible as a means to shut out facts and details, Sev. You are not weighing evidence, you are running from it.Upright BiPed

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

09:36 AM

9

09

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the 'Mat Ecology' sites, please note that the long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacterial life and thus also plays an important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the earth over long periods of time that must be accounted for as well. This following study gives strong indication that the long term tectonic cycle and early bacterial life somehow mysteriously worked together in mutual cooperation with each other in order to maintain the life-sustaining ecology of the Earth over long periods of time:

Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle - Apr. 24, 2013 Excerpt: New research,, demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago.,, This indicates that the sulfur comes from a deep mantle reservoir containing crustal material subducted before the Great Oxidation Event and preserved for over half the age of Earth. "These measurements place the first firm age estimates of recycled material in oceanic hotspots," Hauri said. "They confirm the cycling of sulfur from the atmosphere and oceans into mantle and ultimately back to the surface," Hauri said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424132705.htm

We simply would not be here if these ancient communities of mutually interdependent bacteria, working in conjunction with a 'timed' tectonic cycle, did not fundamentally transform, i.e. 'terraform', the ancient Earth so that the Earth could eventually sustain higher multicellular organisms such as ourselves As Paul Falkowski stated, "Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides."

The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Falkowski 2008 Excerpt: "Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides." – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18497287/

And finally in regards to Seversky's claim that that the earliest life on earth does not "support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god." (please note that God is spelled with a small 'g' in Seversky's definition of God). Well, contrary to what Seversky may believe about God and photosynthesis, photosynthetic bacteria do give us scientific evidence that God was directly involved in creating the first life on Earth. Specifically, In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on for food, uses a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum mechanical principle in order to accomplish photosynthesis.

Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis - June 20, 2013 Excerpt: Photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and some bacteria, have mastered this process: In less than a couple of trillionths of a second, 95 percent of the sunlight they absorb is whisked away to drive the metabolic reactions that provide them with energy. The efficiency of photovoltaic cells currently on the market is around 20 percent.,,, Van Hulst and his group have evaluated the energy transport pathways of separate individual but chemically identical, antenna proteins, and have shown that each protein uses a distinct pathway. The most surprising discovery was that the transport paths within single proteins can vary over time due to changes in the environmental conditions, apparently adapting for optimal efficiency. "These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences" says van Hulst. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620142932.htm Unlocking nature's quantum engineering for efficient solar energy - January 7, 2013 Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,, "Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.",,, These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. "This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices." http://phys.org/news/2013-01-nature-quantum-efficient-solar-energy.html

As an atheist, Seversky simply has no "non-local", i.e. beyond space and time, cause that he can appeal in order to explain quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement. Indeed, trying to get around quantum non-locality was the entire point of atheists appealing to hidden variables and pilot waves in the first place in order to try to 'explain away' quantum non-locality:

Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016 DISCUSSION Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,, Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600162.full Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, “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,” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm A Critique of Bohmian Mechanics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2hoU4jaQQ

Whereas atheists are, (once again), left without an adequate scientific explanation to explain quantum non-locality, on the other hand I, as a Christian Theist, readily do have a "non-local", i.e. beyond space and time, cause that I can appeal to in order to adequately explain non-local quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement. Namely, I can appeal to God spelled with a capital G! Verse and Music

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Natalie Grant - King Of The World (Official Acoustic Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6NfOJl26F4

bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

06:38 AM

6

06

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Darwinists may desperately want to believe that life started out as a relatively simple cell, but they simply have no evidence, theoretical or empirical evidence, that such a relatively simple cell is even theoretically, or empirically, possible. As Craig Venter, who tried to find the minimal set of genes necessary for 'simple' life, noted, "We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms,",,,"These findings are very humbling.",,,

Microbe with stripped-down DNA may hint at secrets of life - Mar 24, 2016 Excerpt: The newly created bacterium has a smaller genetic code than does any natural free-living counterpart, with 531,000 DNA building blocks containing 473 genes. (Humans have more than 3 billion building blocks and more than 20,000 genes). But even this stripped-down organism is full of mystery. Scientists say they have little to no idea what a third of its genes actually do. "We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms," researcher J. Craig Venter told reporters. "These findings are very humbling.",,, The genome is not some one-and-only minimal set of genes needed for life itself. For one thing, if the researchers had pared DNA from a different bacterium they would probably have ended up with a different set of genes.,,, The genome is "as small as we can get it and still have an organism that is ... useful," Hutchison said.,,, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_SKINNY_GENES Mycoplasma mycoides Just Destroyed Evolution?“We’re Showing How Complex Life Is” – March 24, 2016 Excerpt: The origin of life problem can be divided into two broad categories: ground-up and top-down. In the ground-up approach, evolutionists try to figure out how the first life could have arisen spontaneously from an inorganic world. In spite of the evolutionist’s claims to the contrary, the century-long ground-up research program has utterly failed. That leaves the top-down approach. Here, evolutionists work with simple, unicellular life forms, carefully removing parts one at a time in their search for smaller, simpler life forms. If evolution is true, they should be able to reduce life to a very simple, basic form which could conceivably arise by chance somehow. This approach has been failing as well, as in recent years all the signs pointed to a minimal life form consisting of at least a few hundred genes—far beyond evolution’s meager resources of random change. Now, this latest research has upped the ante. It is just getting worse. A minimal organism consisting of 473 genes is many orders of magnitude beyond evolution’s capabilities. Simply put, the science contradicts the theory. What the science is telling us is that evolution is impossible, by any reasonable definition of that term. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/03/mycoplasma-mycoides-just-destroyed.html

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Atheistic Naturalists, we now have evidence that life may have started off as a complex web of mutually interdependent microbes, (in 'microbial mats' on Stromatolites), rather than starting off as a relatively simple cell, all by its lonesome, as Darwinists falsely envision. Specifically, evidence for 'sulfate reducing' bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria 3.8 billion years ago

When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010 Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria. http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth?

Moreover, evidence for 3.7 billion year old stromatolites, (i.e. microbial mats), has now also been found

Oldest fossils on Earth discovered in 3.7bn-year-old Greenland rocks – August 31, 2016 Excerpt: Scientists have discovered the oldest physical evidence for life on the planet in the form of fossils in Greenland rocks that formed 3.7bn years ago. The researchers believe the structures in the rocks are stromatolites - layered formations, produced by the activity of microbes, that can be found today in extremely saline lagoons in a few locations around the world. The new fossils are 220 million years older than any previously discovered. “Up until now the oldest stromatolites have been from Western Australia and they are roughly 3,500 million (3.5bn) years [old],” said Clark Friend, an independent researcher and co-author of the research. “What we are doing is pushing the discovery of life earlier in Earth’s history.”,,, the shape of the newly discovered structures, together with clues from their chemical make-up and signs of layers within them, suggests that they were formed by microbes,,, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/31/oldest-fossils-on-earth-discovered-in-37bn-year-old-greenland-rocks-stromatolites

Moreover, the microbial mat ecology, such as the ecology of the microbes that build stromatolites, is mutually interdependent and, therefore, irreducibly complex, and thus inexplicable to Darwinian explanations

Biologically mediated cycles for hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and iron – image of interdependent ‘biogeochemical’ web http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5879/1034/F2.large.jpg Microbial Mat Ecology - image https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0717345817300738-gr2.jpg Microbial mat ecosystems: Structure types, functional diversity, and biotechnological application - 2018 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0717345817300738

Please note, that if even one major type of bacteria group did not exist in these ancient microbial mats, in this complex environmental cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the preceding sites, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but now they must also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this irreducibly complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive for any extended period of time.bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

06:35 AM

6

06

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Next Seversky states, "The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god." Well actually we have plenty of scientific evidence that the supposedly 'simple' life on the ancient earth was exceedingly complex from the get go. First off, via iron ores, we have evidence that photosynthetic life was present on Earth 4 billion years ago.

Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria – Apr. 23, 2013 Excerpt: The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old. ,,, This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth’s oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423110750.htm Life's history in iron - Nov. 7, 2014 Excerpt: A new study examines how Earth's oldest iron formations could have been formed before oxygenic photosynthesis played a role in oxidizing iron.,,, Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III). "In other words, they oxidize the iron," explains Pecoits. "This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Byr-ago)." http://phys.org/news/2014-11-life-history-iron.html

And photosynthesis, both oxygenic and anoxygenic photosynthesis, are exceedingly complex processes, (in fact anoxygenic photosynthesis turns to be even more complex that oxygenic photosynthesis is)

"Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form." - Early Life Remains Complex By Fazale R. Rana (FACTS for FAITH Issue 7, 2001) Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin: Excerpt: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html Enzymes and protein complexes needed in photosynthesis - with graphs https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1637-enzymes-and-protein-complexes-needed-in-photosynthesis Researchers Build Public “Library” To Help Understand Photosynthesis - March 19, 2019 Excerpt: It isn’t easy being green. It takes thousands of genes to build the photosynthetic machinery that plants need to harness sunlight for growth. And yet, researchers don’t know exactly how these genes work. Now a team led by Princeton University researchers has constructed a public “library” to help researchers to find out what each gene does. Using the library, the team identified 303 genes associated with photosynthesis including 21 newly discovered genes with high potential to provide new insights into this life-sustaining biological process. The study was published online this week in Nature Genetics. “The part of the plant responsible for photosynthesis is like a complex machine made up of many parts, and we want to understand what each part does,” said Martin Jonikas, assistant professor of molecular biology at Princeton. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-build-public-library-to-help-understand-photosynthesis/

Even neglecting the fact that we have evidence for extremely complex photosynthetic life 4 billion years ago, the basic metabolic requirements of even the simplest conceivable cell is also exceeding complex.

Origin of life: heterotrophic or autotrophic , the emergence of the Basic Metabolic Processes - article https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2173-origin-of-life-heterotrophic-or-autotrophic-the-emergence-of-the-basic-metabolic-processes Basic Metabolic Processes - graph http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/17/30/76/23/reduct11.png

bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

06:31 AM

6

06

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

That is not the only logical fallacy that Seversky commits. Seversky follows up that oxymoron with a strawman argument. To repeat, he states, "Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back. One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith." Seversky, instead of addressing the fact that life, contrary to Darwinian expectations that it took a very long time for the first living cell to form on the ancient earth, Seversky instead attacks a Young Earth Creationism strawman. Yet Seversky knows that I myself am not a young earth creationist, and Seversky also knows that there is severe disagreement among Christian Scholars themselves as to the correct interpretation of the Bible.

BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS – January 28, 2015 Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (strict 24 hour period) interpretation. Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7). J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.” Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.” Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.” Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.” I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,. https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

Seversky himself alludes to one of the reasons for regarding the Old Earth interpretation to be the correct interpretation of the Bible when he states that the Bible "also refers to day and night existing before light, (i.e. the sun), was created"

Genesis 1: 3-5 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Thus since God himself is defining 'day' after he created light, yet before he created the Sun itself, then how can the word 'day' in the Bible possibly be held to mean only 24 hour periods of time as is held in the Young Earth interpretation of the Bible? It simply makes no exegesis sense to hold to a strict 24 hour definition of 'day'.

Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth - Jonathan M. - 2011 Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods? Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone: 1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours). 2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day. 3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days. 4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” http://crossexamined.org/why-i-reject-a-young-earth-view-a-biblical-defense-of-an-old-earth/

Since Seversky is apparently dead set in defending his atheism at all costs, and could care less what the truth actually is, I guess the only option left for him is to set up a fallacious strawman argument against Young Earth creationism. The scientific evidence itself is simply crushing to his atheistic worldview. First off, as Dr. James Tour, (one of the leading synthetic chemists in the world), recently, brilliantly, and expertly, elucidated, due to the complexity involved in forming the first living cell, Darwinists, nor anyone else, has a realistic clue how the first living cell could have possibly formed naturalistically.

Episode 13/13: Summary & Projections // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GTCHkId6M&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr&index=16

Due to the complexity involved in forming the first living cell, Darwinists appealed to a 'primordial soup' and deep time in order to try to explain how the first living cell could have possibly formed on the ancient Earth. Yet there is no evidence that a 'primordial soup' ever existed on the face of the ancient Earth. As Dr. Hugh Ross explains, there simply are no 'prebiotic chemical signatures' on the ancient Earth.

"We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth's oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant" (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth)." - Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video (40:10 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UPvO2EkiLls#t=2410

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Naturalists, life appeared on the ancient Earth as soon as it was possible for life to appear on the ancient earth.

Life on Earth may date back 3.95 bn years: study - September 27, 2017 Excerpt: life may have existed on Earth 3.95 billion years ago, a time when our infant planet was being bombarded by comets and had hardly any oxygen, researchers said Wednesday.,,, "Our samples are also the oldest supracrustal rocks preserved on Earth"—a type similar to the formation which contained the Quebec samples.,,, For the new study, Komiya and a team studied graphite, a form of carbon used in pencil lead, in rocks at Saglek Block in Labrador, Canada. They measured its isotope composition, the signature of chemical elements, and concluded the graphite was "biogenic"—meaning it was produced by living organisms. https://phys.org/news/2017-09-life-earth-date-bn-years.html

Darwinists simply did not expect this. As the following article notes, "Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking,",,, "Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously,",,,

Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago—much earlier than scientists thought - October 19, 2015 Excerpt: UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago—300 million years earlier than previous research suggested.,,, "Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking,",,, "Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously,",,, The new research suggests that life existed prior to the massive bombardment of the inner solar system that formed the moon's large craters 3.9 billion years ago.,,, "The early Earth certainly wasn't a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that," Harrison said. "The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought.",,, The researchers, led by Elizabeth Bell,,, identified 656 zircons containing dark specks that could be revealing and closely analyzed 79 of them with Raman spectroscopy, a technique that shows the molecular and chemical structure of ancient microorganisms in three dimensions.,,, One of the 79 zircons contained graphite—pure carbon—in two locations.,,, The carbon contained in the zircon has a characteristic signature—a specific ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13—that indicates the presence of photosynthetic life. "We need to think differently about the early Earth," Bell said. http://phys.org/news/2015-10-life-earth-billion-years-agomuch.html

Thus, I guess it is not surprising that Seversky would set up a strawman argument against Young Earth creationism. The scientific evidence itself is simply crushing to what naturalists had presupposed. The scientific evidence itself has falsified their belief in a 'primordial soup' and it has also falsified their belief that it took a long time for the first living cell to develop on the ancient earth. Since the scientific evidence itself has falsified what Naturalists had presupposed, Seversky, as a dogmatic atheist, simply has no other option than to set up, and attack, a strawman argument. Otherwise he would have to honestly admit that the scientific evidence itself strongly favors Theism over Atheism.

Strawman Argument Excerpt: It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman argument is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway. The strawman argument is a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Verse:

Nehemiah 9:6 “You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

03:05 AM

3

03

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky then claims, "Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back. One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith." Well, first off, there are no such things as 'Naturalistic/Materialistic observations'. Only an immaterial mind is capable of having a subjective conscious experience. Purely material objects observe nothing because they are conscious of nothing. i.e. 'the hard problem' of consciousness. Moreover, Donald Hoffman has proven that, if the materialism of Darwinian evolution were actually true, then all our observations of reality would be illusory.

Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality

Moreover, reliable observations are an integral part of the scientific method. In fact, the first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you.

Scientific Method - *Observation *Question *Hypothesis *Experiment *Results *Conclusion https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-method-p2-373335

Thus assuming the naturalism and/or materialism of Darwinian evolution to be true actually undermines the scientific method itself since it ends up claiming that ALL of our observations of reality are illusory. And you don't have to take Donald Hoffman's word for it. Many leading Evolutionists admit as much,

“the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.” – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." - Richard Dawkins - militant atheist - quoted from his book "The God Delusion"

Luckily for us, science itself could care less that Darwinists are forced to believe, via the mathematics of population genetics, that ALL their observations of reality are illusory. Experimental results from quantum theory prove that ALL our conscious observations, of reality, far from being unreliable and illusory, are experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, and therefore, far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted for Darwinian theory. In the following experiment, it was found that ““It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

Likewise, the following experiment also found that “reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

And as the following recent experiment also stated, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

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

Thus, according to the mathematical predictions of Darwinian theory, ALL of our perceptions are illusory. Yet according to the experimental results from quantum theory, ALL our perceptions of reality, far from being illusory. are found to integral to, and therefore reliable of, reality. And in empirical science, experimental results trump theoretical predictions every time. As Feynman stated, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

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

Thus the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian theory, and as far as experimental science itself is concerned, is falsified as the reason for why we have reliable observations. Thus, "Nat/mat observations" is an oxymoron. And for Seversky to state that "Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time," is for him to state a huge non-sequitur. There simply are no such things as "Nat/mat observations". Purely material objects can observe nothing! It takes an immaterial mind to have a subjective conscious experience, i.e. 'the hard problem' of consciousness.bornagain77

March 19, 2021

March

03

Mar

19

19

2021

03:03 AM

3

03

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link