“When Scientists Ignore Science…” by Mark Champneys

_{Granville Sewell
April 9, 2020

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Embedded below is a nice new video “When Scientists Ignore Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics” produced by Mark Champneys.

Comments

Their effort to stop Dembski was futile since the video soon went viral on the web and anyone with access to a computer could download the video and watch it whenever they wanted., and see for themselves the amazing design that is readily apparent in the cell. Anyways, fast forward to 2013. In 2013, apparently trying to undo some of the damage done to Darwinian thinking by the 'Inner Life of the Cell' video, Harvard BioVisions then made another video entitled 'Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing'. In this 2013 video, Harvard Biovisions tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random, chaotic, and haphazard as possible. As you can see in the video clip, they tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random and accidental and therefore “Darwinian” as they possibly could so as to try to dispel any impression of design in the cell that they had inadvertently created in their first video.
Inner Life of a Cell | Protein Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeTQLNFTgU
And here is a New York times article on the 'Protein Packing' video. In the article, Carl Zimmer states that ' “In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules” but of the 2013 video he said that the molecules of the cell are “barely constrained randomness.’ and that they 'flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.'
Watch Proteins Do the Jitterbug - Carl Zimmer - APRIL 10, 2014 Excerpt: “barely constrained randomness.’, In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/science/watch-proteins-do-the-jitterbug.html
Moreover, although the Darwinists at Harvard Biovisions and Carl Zimmer, and thus Darwinists in general , believed that life is dominated by “barely constrained randomness’ it is now found that life is anything but “barely constrained randomness.’
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
For instance, in the following 2016 paper, it was found that “crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.” In fact, finding a lack of ‘collisions’ in the crowded cell was a ‘counterintuitive surprise’ for the researchers: Specifically one of the researchers stated: “This was a surprise,” “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”
Proteins put up with the roar of the crowd – June 23, 2016 Excerpt: It gets mighty crowded around your DNA, but don’t worry: According to Rice University researchers, your proteins are nimble enough to find what they need. Rice theoretical scientists studying the mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions in live cells showed that crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.,,, If DNA can be likened to a library, it surely is a busy one. Molecules roam everywhere, floating in the cytoplasm and sticking to the tightly wound double helix. “People know that almost 90 percent of DNA is covered with proteins, such as polymerases, nucleosomes that compact two meters into one micron, and other protein molecules,” Kolomeisky said.,,, That makes it seem that proteins sliding along the strand would have a tough time binding, and it’s possible they sometimes get blocked. But the Rice team’s theory and simulations indicated that crowding agents usually move just as rapidly, sprinting out of the way. “If they move at the same speed, the molecules don’t bother each other,” Kolomeisky said. “Even if they’re covering a region, the blockers move away quickly so your protein can bind.” In previous research, the team determined that stationary obstacles sometimes help quicken a protein’s search for its target by limiting options. This time, the researchers sought to define how crowding both along DNA and in the cytoplasm influenced the process. “We may think everything’s fixed and frozen in cells, but it’s not,” Kolomeisky said. “Everything is moving.”,,, Floating proteins appear to find their targets quickly as well. “This was a surprise,” he said. “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.” http://phys.org/news/2016-06-proteins-roar-crowd.html
There are many more examples in the Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology that falsify the Darwinian belief in “barely constrained randomness.’ But what is more troubling is that Darwinists, (whether it is tightly controlled randomness, or whether it is “barely constrained randomness’ as they had falsely presupposed), never tell us exactly what it is that is supposedly doing the so called 'constraining' within their reductive materialistic framework, i.e. "What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?" Darwinists simply have nothing within their reductive materialistic framework to appeal to so as to tell us what exactly it is that is doing the so called 'constraining'. This is no matter of playing semantics (as Darwinists are fond of doing), This irresolvable problem of providing a overarching 'context' to any given situation is inherent to the reductive materialist framework. For example, Jim Al-Khalil states, "Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules.,,, living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero.
Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states, ",,and Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can't build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn't really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it." At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state: “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”. Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q
To further drive this point home that Darwinists have no clue as to exactly what it is that is 'constraining' life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In short and in conclusion, Darwinian materialists have no clue, and never will have a clue in how they might answer this question,
What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?
Whereas Christians, to repeat, readily do have an answer, i.e. immaterial information and/or a 'soul' Verse
John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PST}

In post 34 I asked Darwinists to answer this question,
What power, force, and/or thing, is constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer? Or as Stephen Talbott so eloquently put the question, “,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
My answer to that question was,,,
Unlike Darwinists, ID advocates have a ready explanation. Life is constrained to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, for precisely a lifetime, simply because it is immaterial information and/or the ‘soul’ that is holding the trillions of molecules of a organism into a single unified whole for precisely a lifetime.
Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH – Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 “Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information.” Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/ comment: It is the ‘soul’ holding the body together for ‘precisely for a lifetime’ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/#comment-695364 Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg Drawing – soul leaving the body at death https://slm-assets.secondlife.com/assets/5935044/lightbox/Spirit%20Release.jpg?1342658045
Seversky at 45 and Ed George at 46 tried to answer the question. Their answers reveal that they have no real clue as to what the question actually is. To repeat the question,
“,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
Or to put the question another way,
What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?
That Darwinists have no clue how to answer this question is revealed by the following, In 2006 Harvard University, via “BioVisions”, made a video entitled The Inner Life of the Cell
The Inner Life of the Cell http://www.xvivo.net/animation/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/
The video was one of the first videos that animated some of the amazing molecular machines that are now being found in cells. The overwhelming impression of design of the cell literally leaps out of the video. Since the Intelligent Design of the cell is readily apparent in the video for all to see, Dr. William Dembski, one of the pioneers of the Intelligent Design movement, would, circa 2007, show the video in some of his talks on Intelligent Design:
Inner Life of a Cell w William Dembski commentary – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNs5kBE66Xo
When Harvard BioVisions found out about Dr. Dembski using the video in his lectures they 'warned' him not to use the video.
William A. Dembski Excerpt: The Inner Life of the Cell copyright controversy,, David Bolinsky, creator of the video, wrote that Dembski was warned about using the video without permission,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
bornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PST}

Seversky's post at 72 is so disjointed that it is laughable. First off Seversky states this,
Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago. The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you – including you!
Instead of offering any evidence that it is possible for Darwinian processes to overcome the dissipative effects of entropy, Seversky instead offers the fallacious argument of presupposing his desired conclusion into the premises of his argument. i,e, In answering the question of "where did life come from?, Seversky answer is, basically, "life exists so it must have evolved." This logical fallacy is known as circular argumentation:
Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii, meaning “Assuming the initial [thing]” (commonly mistranslated as “begging the question”). This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where it only appears to be an argument. It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way that looks like an argument. You can recognize a circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the argument. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
Seversky arguments don't get any better. Seversky goes on
BA77: Shoot, Darwinists, for the most part, don’t even seriously contest the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Sev: And is that fact in the Bible somewhere or was it perhaps discovered by materialist evolutionary biologists in spite of the lack of divine assistance?
This answer is just astonishing. Seversky's hatred for Christianity is apparently so overwhelming that it has completely blinded him to the obvious fact that it is the evidence itself that falsifies a hypothesis no matter who discovers that falsifying evidence. Hitler himself could have discovered the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and just because it was Hitler himself who discovered that fact that still would not matter one bit in regards to the fact that it is the evidence itself that falsifies the theory, not the person. As Richard Feynman stated, "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.”
If it (your hypothesis) 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 https://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html
Seversky goes on to state,
Not all biologists are atheists as I’m sure you know but it was materialistic biologists who did the science and found the evidence that we are all discussing.
Actually I would like to see Seversky prove that point. I gave a list of reference of several studies in post 63. Perhaps Seversky would be so kind as to look up the religious beliefs of each scientist in that long list of studies? I bet quite a few in that list would turn out not to be atheist but to be Christian or Jewish, or some other faith.. Moreover, adding the adjective 'materialist' to the word biologist or to the word scientist, as Seversky did in his sentence, is an oxymoron. Materialism has nothing to with biology or to whether you are a scientist or not. Materialism is a philosophical presupposition. Moreover, it is a philosophical presupposition that has been falsified by advances in quantum mechanics. i.e. falsified by science:
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or atheistic materialism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or the presupposition of atheistic materialism.
How Christianity Gave Rise to Modern Science - Stephen Meyer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oizn1l5e9_4
bornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

That's the rub, upright biped. The laws of nature cannot produce codes. And those laws are all mother nature has to work with. Enter chaos theory, as if that helps. :roll:ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to any macroscopic system.
Try using it to predict the gene code. Imagine that. The primal control hierarchy that enables specification among alternatives (making life and evolution possible) requires a complimentary description to the equations of physical law.Upright BiPed_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

OK, so both Ed George and seversky are completely ignorant with respect to information. With $10 million on the line they won't submit their findings, though. That is very telling. Talk about being total losers...ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PST}

Sev@72:
Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago.
Given the evidence for genetic entropy maybe it would occur to you and others that life hasn't existed on this planet for 3bn years....Just sayin' ....real scientists don't let the current paradigm blind them to the possible.Latemarch_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PST}

Sev
Radioactive decay of carbon isotopes in tree rings! Double whammy!
You would almost think that non-intellligence created information is found everywhere in nature.Ed George_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST}

Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years.
That's your opinion. However reality says you have to know how the earth formed before you can determine its age.
The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you – including you!?
Question-begging nonsense
And is that fact in the Bible somewhere or was it perhaps discovered by materialist evolutionary biologists in spite of the lack of divine assistance?
They haven't been able to find anything else but that. They can't find a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. Evolutionary biologists are so useless they don't even know what determines form. Meaning they have no idea what makes an organism what it is!
Not all biologists are atheists as I’m sure you know but it was materialistic biologists who did the science and found the evidence that we are all discussing.?
That is also BS. But then again you are full of it, so there's thatET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PST}

seversky and ed George are scientifically illiterate trolls. No wonder they accept evolutionism as something more than the nonsense that it is.ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST}

Bornagain77 @ 63
It is interesting to note that all the Darwinists on this thread, in their attempt to downplay the second law as not being that big of a deal for Darwinian premises, have not offered any empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the dissipative effects of Entropy. Appeals to ‘snowflakes’ not withstanding. Which is just as well, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the continual dissipative effects of Entropy. All the evidence we have tells us that life. instead of evolving into greater complexity, will instead devolve with what is termed ‘genetic entropy’ by Dr. John Sanford:
Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that "genetic entropy" is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago. The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you - including you!
Shoot, Darwinists, for the most part, don’t even seriously contest the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious.
And is that fact in the Bible somewhere or was it perhaps discovered by materialist evolutionary biologists in spite of the lack of divine assistance?
So it is not a matter of Darwinists not knowing the science, it is a matter of Darwinists simply ignoring the science since it directly contradicts what they want to be true beforehand. Namely, they are, for whatever severely misguided reason, emotionally committed to atheism being true beforehand. Evidence to the contrary be damned for all they care!
Not all biologists are atheists as I'm sure you know but it was materialistic biologists who did the science and found the evidence that we are all discussing.Seversky_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PST}

Ed George @ 44
Sev
Tree rings!
Radioactive decay.
Radioactive decay of carbon isotopes in tree rings! Double whammy! Split the prize fifty-fifty?Seversky_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PST}

Momentoftruth, Thanks for the video. Since Darwinists here on UD will never honestly admit it, let me tell you that I personally think that you did an excellent job explaining the subject matter on your video.bornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST}

Heh. I actually used Rankine 2 times in the last 10 years. :-)Jim Thibodeau_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST}

bornagain77- I am so pleased to find that there are others who have thought deeply about these things. Granville Sewell confided to me that he often feels like one of the few voices "crying in the wilderness" to communicate to scientists that the second law is not just about energy. It is about statistical mechanics and the arrangement of anything in large numbers. But we are few who seem to notice this. There are those who have deep knowledge of the principle as it relates to chemistry and energy, as you have so astutely cited. But I am still waiting for our evolutionist friends to show any signs of having watched the video, and to hear acknowledgement of the expression of the generalized law in terms of probability of arrangement, or acknowledgement of the arrow of time, or acknowledgement of the role of constraints, or especially acknowledge the concept of entropy transfer mechanisms (ETM's) that alter local probabilities. Snowflakes follow the probabilities (in terms of chemical geometry). They do not violate the law. When the photosynthesis ETM is present, sunlight follows the probabilities to produce ATP and carbohydrates; and, when absent, that same sunlight follows the probabilities to randomness and destruction. So, Seversky et al, what is the proposed ETM for originating the coded instruction in DNA base sequences??? In other words, what could possibly make specified sequences more probable than randomized sequences? I'm not asking for much. Just that. Anything but the Jeopardy theme song? And why do you guys waste everyone's time commenting on a video that you have not watched?momentoftruth_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PST}

Jim T @21: xkcd Thought you might appreciate this......Latemarch_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PST}

truthfreedom- Thank you for the link to Cohen's paper. He refers multiple times to the "autocatalysis" of information without explanation or definition. Using a chemistry term with information does not make it so. Words do not spontaneously bond to form sentences (or letters to make words) like a chemical reaction. So while it is Interesting psychobabble that is completely meaningless, it seems to be the basis of his _entire_ proposed ETM (as I defined it) for the arrival of information out of thin air. Are we supposed to be convinced?momentoftruth_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST}

More (peer-reviewed) on the barnacle collector being wrong. My pleasure. :) Updating Darwin: Information and entropy drive the evolution of life
"Note that Darwin’s natural selection takes place whenever variant individuals compete for survival in a resource-limited environment. Struggle is essential; natural selection will not operate in the absence of competition. Entropic selection, in contrast, operates wherever entropy operates, even in the absence of variant individuals or environmental straits. And entropy operates everywhere." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200945.1/?report=reader#!po=11.8750
Truthfreedom_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST}

The thread pertains to them ignoring the science...ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PST}

It is interesting to note that all the Darwinists on this thread, in their attempt to downplay the second law as not being that big of a deal for Darwinian premises, have not offered any empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the dissipative effects of Entropy. Appeals to 'snowflakes' not withstanding. :) Which is just as well, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the continual dissipative effects of Entropy. All the evidence we have tells us that life. instead of evolving into greater complexity, will instead devolve with what is termed 'genetic entropy' by Dr. John Sanford:
Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH: Genetic Entropy - Can Genome Degradation be Stopped? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mfn2upw-O8 WHAT IS "GENETIC ENTROPY"? What is Genetic Entropy? It is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations, which are typographical errors in the programming of life (life’s instruction manuals). Mutations systematically erode the information that encodes life’s many essential functions. Biological information consists of a large set of specifications, and random mutations systematically scramble these specifications – gradually but relentlessly destroying the programming instructions essential to life. Genetic entropy is most easily understood on a personal level. In our bodies there are roughly 3 new mutations (word-processing errors), every cell division. Our cells become more mutant, and more divergent from each other every day. By the time we are old, each of our cells has accumulated tens of thousands of mutations. Mutation accumulation is the primary reason we grow old and die. This level of genetic entropy is easy to understand. There is another level of genetic entropy that affects us as a population. Because mutations arise in all of our cells, including our reproductive cells, we pass many of our new mutations to our children. So mutations continuously accumulate in the population – with each generation being more mutant than the last. So not only do we undergo genetic degeneration personally, we also are undergoing genetic degeneration as a population. This is essentially evolution going the wrong way. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop, genetic entropy on the population level. Apart from intelligence, information and information systems always degenerate. This is obviously true in the human realm, but is equally true in the biological realm (contrary to what evolutionists claim). The more technical definition of entropy, as used by engineers and physicists, is simply a measure of disorder. Technically, apart from any external intervention, all functional systems degenerate, consistently moving from order to disorder (because entropy always increases in any closed system). For the biologist it is more useful to employ the more general use of the word entropy, which conveys that since physical entropy is ever-increasing (disorder is always increasing), therefore there is universal tendency for all biological information systems to degenerate over time - apart from intelligent intervention. https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy
Dr. Michael Behe has come to the same conclusion as Dr. John Sanford which he outlined in his latest book, "Darwin Devolves":
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution - Behe - 2019 -- Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes. - per amazon book review
Darwinists simply have no evidence that rare beneficial mutations are capable of overcoming the relentless onslaught of detrimental mutations in the genome that lead to 'Genetic Entropy'?
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 The Human Gene Mutation Database The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease. Deleterious Mutation total (as of January 9. 2020) – 269419 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/ 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
Of supplemental note:
Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? Excerpt Abstract: Most deleterious mutations have very slight effects on total fitness, and it has become clear that below a certain fitness effect threshold, such low-impact mutations fail to respond to natural selection. The existence of such a selection threshold suggests that many low-impact deleterious mutations should accumulate continuously, resulting in relentless erosion of genetic information.,,, Excerpt Conclusion: 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 accumula-tion 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. Even apart from numerical simulation, it would seem readily obvious that the following factors should interfere with selection effectiveness and thereby increase the threshold for selection: (a) large functional genome size; (b) high mutation rate; (c) significant environmental variance; (d) randomness in the selection process; (e) extensive linkage; and (f) small or fragmented popula-tions. These factors are characteristic of all higher life forms [14] and should therefore be included in any future analyses. Our numerical simulation program incorporates all these factors, and suggests that the threshold for selection break-down should be very substantial for most eukaryotic species. As stated by Keightley and Eyre-Walker “How humans and related species evade the effects of mutation load on an evolutionary time scale is also an open question” https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010 Dr. John Sanford – Links to Selected Papers https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford
Shoot, Darwinists, for the most part, don't even seriously contest the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. So it is not a matter of Darwinists not knowing the science, it is a matter of Darwinists simply ignoring the science since it directly contradicts what they want to be true beforehand. Namely, they are, for whatever severely misguided reason, emotionally committed to atheism being true beforehand. Evidence to the contrary be damned for all they care!
John Sanford – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUytqtt54JMKFcqD5smIY2MkqUOOYdPRO
bornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PST}

@53 Ed George
Most people take pride in their work, or their children.
My father takes a lot of pride in his children (me). Specially when I'm on my knees.
But if having sex with your father is what you are proud of, who am I to suggest otherwise?
Absolutely no one. You and your ilk are those that support 'consensual sex between adults'. Meaning you support incest. This is the society you are leaving to your grandaughter.Truthfreedom_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PST}

They need to use it in combination with zinc. I see a faulty trial by the NIH...ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PST}

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/492042-nih-begins-clinical-trial-to-test-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PST}

A big accomplishment for Ed, Jim and seversky would be to understand what science is. However it is obviously way too much to ask. :razz:ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PST}

@EG maybe it’s his biggest accomplishment?Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PST}

What is the difference between data, ie tree rings, and information? Data is only information once it is analyzed and given meaning. Analyzed and given meaning by a mind.ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

And still absolutely no evidence to refute the claim of the OP. And that is very, very telling.ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PST}

Ed George:
I’m sitting here looking at the snow falling and concluding that the snowflakes must be designed because they have lower entropy than water and, by BA77’s logic, violating the 2nd law.
They exist in a designed universe, on a designed planet, which acts according to its design.ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PST}

Only a moron thinks that tree rings are a code or information. Trees are data recorders and they are themselves ALIVE. So seversky, the moron, is trying to use that which requires an explanation to do the explaining.ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST}

TruthFreedom
I am proud of consensually f*****g my dad!
Most people take pride in their work, or their children. But if having sex with your father is what you are proud of, who am I to suggest otherwise?Ed George_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply