VIDEO: Doug Axe presents the thesis of his new (and fast-selling) book, Undeniable

_{kairosfocus

August 2, 2016

Books of interest, Intelligent Design, Logic and Reason, Mind, specified complexity, Video}

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

Video:

[youtube SC9Hx3WpsCk]

Blurb at the Amazon page for the book:

>>Throughout his distinguished and unconventional career, engineer-turned-molecular-biologist Douglas Axe has been asking the questions that much of the scientific community would rather silence. Now, he presents his conclusions in this brave and pioneering book. Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God.

Starting with the hallowed halls of academic science, Axe dismantles the widespread belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution is indisputably true, showing instead that a gaping hole has been at its center from the beginning. He then explains in plain English the science that proves our design intuition scientifically valid. Lastly, he uses everyday experience to empower ordinary people to defend their design intuition, giving them the confidence and courage to explain why it has to be true and the vision to imagine what biology will become when people stand up for this truth.

Armed with that confidence, readers will affirm what once seemed obvious to all of us—that living creatures, from single-celled cyanobacteria to orca whales and human beings, are brilliantly conceived, utterly beyond the reach of accident.

Our intuition was right all along.>>

A bold thesis:

Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge.

Visually:

And again:

Where, per Crick, we see the signature of imposition:

This leads to:

(NB: These screen-shots are in part posted so one can put them up on other fora, on social media etc. as focal points for discussion.)

Let’s watch, read and discuss. END

August 2 7:00 am EST, officially listed as Bestseller in field:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #767 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#1 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion
#1 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism

Comments

Hunt, You really should read the articles that are referenced before you embarrass yourself again like you just did
Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: NASA’s Andrew Pohorille and Michael New supply three reasons to doubt an RNA world:51 1. Protein building blocks are more easily formed than RNA building blocks, which are notoriously difficult to form. 2. RNA cannot easily achieve the crucial aspects of metabolism, such as energy capture and transport. This may have been necessary from the beginning.52 No ribozymes have ever been observed to do something as crucial as establishing a proton gradient to produce ATP energy or synthesizing nucleotides for new RNA strands.53 3. An RNA world would seem to offer a great deal of confusion to natural selection. “[S]ince there is no relationship,” Pohorille and New write, “between the function of a catalytic RNA and the function, if any, of the protein for which it can code, there is no clear path from the ‘RNA world’ to today’s world of protein catalysis and nucleic acid information storage.”54 Further serious problems remain. RNA enzymes emerge at about the frequency suggested by Szostak for proteins, so no relief of probabilities is offered. Additionally, RNA enzymes that break bonds or perform irrelevant tasks may more frequently emerge than the few that would do a cell much good. Any good gained could be lost in this mix. Finally, the backbone structure of RNA suggests that it was impossibly fragile in early watery conditions.55 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins
Oldie but goodie:
The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory for the early evolution of life (except for all the others) - July 2012 Excerpt: "The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis" - Eugene Koonin “The RNA world hypothesis has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra” - Charles Kurland "I view it as little more than a popular fantasy." - Charles Carter http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-7-23.pdf
bornagain77_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

A tennis instructor makes a fundamental, basic error in calculating probabilities, and BA77 laps it up. It's almost as if Donald Trump has joined the conversation here....Arthur Hunt_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Extend to a stew of chemicals, moving about in a pond. On what empirical observation sustained grounds do you have that this can plausibly end in a cell based life form? Enjoy! AH, and the actual, currently observed evidence of an RNA world as actually existing is? ZERO. Please, come again, in accord with Newton's common sense rules. KFArthur Hunt_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: one of the most favorable and liberal estimates is by Jack Szostak: 1 in 10^11. 42 He ascertained this figure by looking to see how random sequences—about eighty amino acids in length, long enough to fold—could cling to the biologically crucial molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP. At first glance, this is an improvement over Salisbury’s calculations by 489 powers of ten. But while an issue has been addressed, the problem has only been deferred. ,,, ,,, nucleotide synthesis, requires several steps. If five enzyme functions were needed (ten are needed in modern adenine synthesis), 43 then the probability would be 1 in (10^11)5, or 1 in 10^55. If all the operations needed for a small autonomous biology were ten functions—this is before evolution can even start to help—the probability is 1 in (10^11)10, or 1 in 10^110. This is more than the number of seconds since the Big Bang, more protons than there are in the universe. In considering a similar figure derived in a different context, Tawfik concedes that if true, this would make “the emergence of sequences with function a highly improbable event, despite considerable redundancy (many sequences giving the same structure and function).”44 In other words, 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
bornagain77_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

AH, kindly take a bucket, maybe a bait bucket. Fill with parts for an ABU 6500 C3 reel. Shake. How long before a functional reel will result? Extend to a stew of chemicals, moving about in a pond. On what empirical observation sustained grounds do you have that this can plausibly end in a cell based life form? And so forth, on through origin of body plans including the well-known gaps of AA chaining space. Remember, per Newton's common-sense rules, only mechanisms shown to be capable of the like results can be appealed to. It seems rather that it is you, sir who lack credible evidence but are relying on an ideological imposition; methodological naturalism. For, it is manifest that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, on trillions of cases in point, does have just one readily observed effective cause: intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, your own comment is a case in point. When you can show such FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1000 bits created by blind chance and mechanical necessity, then you have something to say. Until then, you do not. KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

I added a 4th screen shot, which surfaces the isolated islands of function search challenge issue. 'Tis really not an issue at all. Go back and read all of Axe's research on the subject and answer this: were any of the allegedly non-functional variants in the mutational "determination" of functional sequence space actually assayed (directly) for enzyme activity? In case anyone is wondering, growth of E. coli is a very, very poor proxy for the enzyme activity that Axe is claiming to be studying. If that is all Axe (and Gauger) have, then they actually have no data to support their claims. None whatsoever.Arthur Hunt_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

It may be of interest to some to learn that the 'context dependency' of protein chains makes the probability of finding a specific functional protein by random search, as difficult as it currently is, far more difficult than Axe's current 1 in 10^77 number. Dr. Durston puts the situation with 'context dependency' like this:
(A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012 Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search. http://powertochange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Devious-Distortions-Durston-or-Myers_.pdf
The following paper demonstrated that protein chains are indeed 'context dependent'?
Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective: "A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order." http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/
A 'Cruise Control' mechanism permeating the entire protein structure? That is an absolutely fascinating discovery. Moreover this ‘oneness’ of context residing along the entire protein chain can only be achieved through quantum entanglement principles, and is inexplicable to the reductive materialistic framework of neo-Darwinism! And as Dr. Durston mentioned, "These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well." And just how many orders of magnitude is the probability reduced when the 'context dependency' of 'quantum' proteins is taken into consideration? I believe the following paper gives us a conservative ballpark estimate:
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
As to the question in the last paper, “what exactly is the advantage that (quantum) criticality confers?”, I think the following paper gives us a big clue as to exactly what one advantage might be:
Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life - Jan. 16, 2014 Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb. This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies. So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.,,, The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions. "If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116084838.htm
Put simply, quantum criticality of proteins gives evidence of photon/phonon communication between proteins:
The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another? Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions.,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php
Of related note: Photons emitted from the human body 'are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons':
Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body - 2006 Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060
It should also be noted that photon/phonon communication between proteins in a cell, (and even between cells), that is apparently achieved by some means of 'quantum criticality' along the entire protein structure, is a far more advanced means of communication than man has ever achieved in any of his machines. And is also as different from the 'randomly colliding' means of communication between proteins, that Darwinists had originally envisioned, as night is different from day:
"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB -- and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell.,,,, But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." - Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294) Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013). Dr Alberts served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences
Verse and Music:
Isaiah 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. How Great Thou Art as performed by Carrie Underwood and Vince Gill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2T1csHUgF4
bornagain77_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

@1:14:20 question: What is undeniable? The design intuition that is universally inherent in the human being, but gets pushed down and suppressed as we grow older and get deeper into this world. I believe Dr. Axe's book won't bring anyone to Christ, but it might stir up strong curiosity to seriously approach God's general revelation (i.e. His creation) and eventually encounter the truth in God's special revelation (i.e. His word).Dionisio_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Dr. Axe's presentation is very interesting. The Q/A session that follows is very insightful too. Early in his presentation Dr. Axe said he was not committed to trying to convince the inconvincible. That's an excellent concept, which is biblical. None of us can write or say anything that would convince an inconvincible person. Only God can ultimately do that, if it's according to His will and for His glory. Christ Himself converted the most zealous anti-Christian Saul of Tarsus into the apostle Paul -the most prolific Christian writer in history, author of a substantial part of the New Testament. Through Paul's letters God has convinced the most inconvincible people. The same may apply -to some extent- to the debates that take place here in this site. The way a person answers simple questions may reveal whether that person has genuine desires to know the truth. The Bible tells us not to squander precious time on senseless arguments with anyone who does not desire to join others in finding the truth.Dionisio_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Very interesting subject: Design intuition in children, which is beaten out of us, suppressed, as we grow older. Design intuition: observation -> question -> deduction Dr. Axe referred to The Wall Street Journal article "See Jane Evolve: Picture Books Explain Darwin". The word 'intuition' according to Merriam-Webster dictionary:
the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference Simple Definition of intuition 1 : a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why 2 : something that is known or understood without proof or evidence
Interestingly Dr. Axe said he wants to take the message to a wide audience, i.e. as many people as possible. @45:30 truth can be counterintuitive ? Darwin proposed two things: the so-called tree of life random variation (mutation) and natural selection as the cause of the tree of life @47:30 ID does not take side in the debate between CD and UD? @50 arguments from probability can be vulnerable ? @1:00:00 relativism vs. realism debate? @1:03:20 2-yo child does science? @1:06:10 creativity associated with some kind of intuition ? moment of inspiration?Dionisio_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

KF Thank you for posting this. BTW, @4:
But don’t you unnner-stand? SCIENCE is the only begetter of truth, and all right-thinking people know that SCIENCE is evolutionary materialistic.
Apparently that's how it goes these days and we have no choice but accept it. Pathetic.Dionisio_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

PS: I added a 4th screen shot, which surfaces the isolated islands of function search challenge issue.kairosfocus_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

News: I added a clip with a cite of the key thesis from the blurb. [I ended up with a trio.] (News, I also put the vid link back up top using the embed widget again -- I hope it is visible to all.) D: But don't you unnner-stand? SCIENCE is the only begetter of truth, and all right-thinking people know that SCIENCE is evolutionary materialistic. KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Then maybe D. Axe's new book seriously addressing fundamental scientific issues will be in the 'Religion/Philosophy' sections of some bookstores while R. Dawkins' pseudoscience books mocking and whining against belief in God are displayed in the 'Science' sections? Welcome to this world! :)Dionisio_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

I added embed code so the vid shows on this page Also note #1 in developmental biology as of this morning, which I have swatched in. - NewsNews_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

The report for the general public on 25 years of technical research on whether blind chance and mechanical necessity can credibly create significantly novel complex proteins and genes.kairosfocus_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply