Video: Biologist Douglas Axe on challenges to Darwinian evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 25, 2013

News}

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

Comments

Lizzie:
It doesn’t really matter whether we call the putative designer “God” or not – the fact remains that “design” doesn’t function as a default.
Great another evo who doesn't know the definition of the word "default". Design is NOT the default Lizzie. The design inference is reached via active consideration of alternative explanations.
If IDists want to propose that biological things were designed, then they need a positive hypothesis – we all do, it’s how science works.
Unguided evolution doesn't have a testable hypothesis, Lizzie. OTOH IDists have produced several for ID. So please, stop with your nonsensical grandstanding.Joe_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Lizzie sez:
Seriously, Douglas, you are surely not so ignorant of evolutionary theory that you think that Darwin “employed” (proposed?) a “a chance process”? And, if so, what on earth do you mean by “chance”?
Just count how many times the word "chance" appears in "On The Origin of Soecies" and check the context. Then there is Mayr, in "What Evolution Is"- he states the variation is entirely by chance- ie happenstance. She goes on:
In fact we know the opposite – we know that, using precisely the mechanism that Darwin proposed, we can generate highly complex and functional pieces of engineering, so much so that we often use the Darwinian algorithm instead of human beings to solve difficult and complex problems.
Bald assertion, Lizzie. And the algorithms we use are NOT darwinian. You just have no clue and it shows. The algorithms we use are goal oriented- ie DESIGNED to solve problems. When humans design something to do something, and it does, then it does so by design. As your own Allan Miller said- evolutionism is more just a stumble, not an algorithm. Lizzie just doesn't give a damn about reality and chooses to try to alter it to suit her beliefs. Nice job Liz- did you think we wouldn't notice? Really?Joe_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

billmaz Sorry for the LOL above, but I could not resist. You seem to be bandying about the term self-organizing without realizing that you are talking about a religious idea. The reason is this. Anything that is self-organinzing by purely chemical or natural affinity can not add to the amount of information or meaning. It can only do what it is programmed to do. An increase in organization by purely mechanical ( natural forces which must always react with the same probability even if they are chaotic in nature ) is NOT a net increase in information. Increase in information ( like DNA codes for example ) implies input of intelligence. To throw about the term "self-organizing" to mean something present in the universe which creates new information de novo, is to insist that some kind of intelligence is behind the design. Welcome to the ID community billmaz.JDH_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Of note, I find it incredible that since nothing in science could possibly be provable without God (presuppositional apologetics), then why in blue blazes would anyone dare to think that the advance of science will not strongly lead us in a direction towards the truth of God? The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 In his debate with him, Dr Craig states that Dr. Rosenberg blurs together Epistemological Naturalism: which holds that science is the only source of knowledge and, Metaphysical Naturalism: which holds that only physical things exist As to, Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge, Dr. Craig states it is a false theory of knowledge since,,, a). it is overly restrictive and b) it is self refuting Moreover Dr Craig states, epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism.,, In fact a Empistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist, according to Dr. Craig, because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points: 1. The argument from the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states implies non-physical minds (dualism), which is incompatible with naturalism 2. The existence of meaning in language is incompatible with naturalism, Rosenberg even says that all the sentences in his own book are meaningless 3. The existence of truth is incompatible with naturalism 4. The argument from moral praise and blame is incompatible with naturalism 5. Libertarian freedom (free will) is incompatible with naturalism 6. Purpose is incompatible with naturalism 7. The enduring concept of self is incompatible with naturalism 8. The experience of first-person subjectivity (“I”) is incompatible with naturalism I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position actually is. Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ music: Red - Breathe Into Me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH-k_6tU9Wcbornagain77_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Lizzie has a post about what Axe says. She writes:
One huge difference is that biological “designs” are self-reproducing organisms, and so far human designs are resolutely non-self-reproducing.
1- That reproduction part is the very thing your position cannot explain 2- Computer programs do self-reproduce. And an automated factory line was used in Darwin's Ghost as an example of reproduction with variation Kind of a bad start there, Lizzie.Joe_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Billmaz said
In terms of a self-organizing universe, I don’t think there is any doubt that that is what we’re living in. The question is how much and in what way does it apply to biology and evolution.
He also said:
I don’t want to get into an argument about religion.
LOL!JDH_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

,,,It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?,,,
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html Information In Photon - Robert W. Boyd - slides from presentation http://www.quantumphotonics.uottawa.ca/assets/pdf/Boyd-Como-InPho.pdf Information in a Photon - Robert W. Boyd - 2010 Excerpt: By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited. http://www.pqeconference.com/pqe2011/abstractd/013.pdf
Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';
Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011 Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html
,,,The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,
Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum (wave) state as probabilistic,” he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Moreover:
Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. 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.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, “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,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the 'infinite information' of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the 'uncertain' particle state,,,
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities; Zeno Quantum Effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
,,,Wigner stated this in regards to his Nobel Prize winning work on Quantum Symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
,,,i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”,,, Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0’ state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon??? John 1:1-5 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. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,bornagain77_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

billmaz, You might ask yourself a few questions. Why do they call it "Natural" Selection, when they claim no metric exists which can discern if the selection process is, in fact, "natural" and not artificial (intelligently orchestrated, like breeding programs)? Why do they call it "Random" Mutation, when they claim no metric exists that can vet the nature of the necessary mutations as indeed "random" and not artificial (intelligently orchestrated)? Why are the principle features of the evolutionary hypothesis not simply termed "heritable change" and "survival differential", instead of loading the hypothesis with terms that exclude the possibility of the involvement of intelligence - i.e., "Natural" Selection and "Random" Mutation? I don't know of anyone that would quibble over a theory that utilized the terms "heritable change" and "survival differential". Darwinistic evolutionary theory is a religious argument dressed up as if it were a scientific theory.William J Murray_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information's dominion over space and time (specifically time);
Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011 Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html
and this experiment: Here’s a variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights quantum information's transcendence of time so as to effect 'spooky action into the past';
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
,,,Whereas these following experiment, in conjunction with 'perfect' teleportation experiments, shows that quantum information is 'conserved',,,
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
,,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state (superposition) of a photon, which is defined as a infinite dimensional state which can be encoded with infinite information, collapses to its particle state, the collapsed state yields only a single bit of information:,,,
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Zeilinger's principle The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. http://science.jrank.org/pages/20784/Zeilinger%27s-principle.html#ixzz17a7f88PM 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 teleportation:
,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
bornagain77_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

billmaz at 34
God, being unprovable, simply can’t be the default.
billmaz at 38
I don’t want to get into an argument about religion.
too late: Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe
"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -- Ernest Rutherford
From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - (Paper announced at Hawking's 70th birthday party) Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the ‘beyond space and time’ 'information theoretic' origin, and sustaining, of this universe,; Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it. i.e. one must now appeal to a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain the continued existence of photons within spacetime:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
The following experiments demonstrate that energy and mass reduce to quantum information;
How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to 'instantaneous' teleportation:,,,
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed 'instantaneous', thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/ Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011 Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing
bornagain77_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Then why do you worship DNA as if it's some kind of all-powerful body-plan-transforming thing?Joe_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

I don't want to get into an argument about religion.billmaz_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

billmaz, Unguided evolution can't muster a testable hypothesis, so what, exactly, do you mean when you say: Evolution is simply the only scientific hypothesis available?Joe_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

billmaz @34:
Evolution is simply the only scientific hypothesis available, lifepsy.
Except for design of course.
God, being unprovable, simply can’t be the default.
Design does not entail God, so we need to be careful to not conflate the two. It is ironic, though, that you think evolution should be the default, since its larger claims are also unproven and, indeed, run counter to the evidence we do have.Eric Anderson_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

According to the stated definition of Intelligent Design, God is NOT the default. It is only after eliminating change and necessity. In fact, God is not explicitly named; merely intelligence. As for God being unprovable: that requires denial of a lot of the current cosmological, biological and philosophical data. I suspect that most Darwinists today share the same mindset as Thomas Nagel:
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. [Emphasis mine]
RexTugwell_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Evolution is simply the only scientific hypothesis available, lifepsy. I can't wait for the day when a better scientific hypothesis comes about. God, being unprovable, simply can't be the default.billmaz_{March 27, 2013
March
03
Mar
27
27
2013
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Billmaz, (9)
Bornagain, Your paper also suggests that an alternative reading frame of existing genes could have easily given rise to new genes. There is no reason why all of these mechanisms and more can’t be happening at the same time. If anything, taking together all of these mechanisms of gene evolution is an argument FOR evolution, in that it increases the possibilities of new genes being formed at all levels.
I don't know Billmaz.. you post "conclusions" that genes in general arose from duplication and divergence... and then Bornagain77 shows you even more recent "conclusions" that a substantial portion of genes arose de novo and not from duplication-divergence. Then you personally conclude that such contradictions are even more evidence for evolution, because it just has more options to choose from. Nothing about that seems a little off to you? I haven't read the full study you cited, but in the paper Bornagain77 linked to: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/14/117/abstract ...the conclusions are totally Ad-hoc and totally unpredicted from a neo-darwinian point of view. The widespread presence of orphan genes simply leaves evolutionists no other option but to conclude the functional sequences de-novo "poofed" into existence in a very short period of time since divergence from last common ancestor. It's important to note that there is not one shred of evidence that this can possibly happen. I've not even read one workable hypothesis about how such a large amount of de novo function can be generated in the evolutionary blink of an eye. It's simply asserted to be the only explanation if evolution is true. So.. personally I wouldn't advertise such a conclusion as being more evidence for the mechanism.lifepsy_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

OT: Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0bornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

As a YEC its fine to see these criticisms of evolution but they still grasp at obscure points of DNA or this or that. Evolutionary biology is saying that creatures body plans, inside and out, changed from a original bug/fish into the glory we now live with or was around in the past. REALLY? Thats incredible.! What could do such violence to one body plan and such beauty of complexity in ,aking the new one. MUTATIONS? REALLY! So many doing so much so magnificently. ! Hard to believe eh!? it should be up to evolutionists to prove their case! Not as Darwin said for critics to prove it couldn't happen. Chuck doesn't understand scientific evidence needed for unlikely hypothesis.Robert Byers_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

There are no challenges to Darwinian evolution. It's a fact, like gravity and global warming. There are merely unbelievers. Convert or suffer.Mung_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

I suspect you're a Christian at heart, Bill, (or at least, a Good Samaritan) so I feel comfortable to bring up a new 'take' on Maurice chevalier's quip, when asked what he thought of old age: 'I prefer it to the alternative.' Our lives are like the closing of jaws on love or malice. It would not always be easy to hazard the choice others make, sometimes our own, maybe: a clergyman could be a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', a used-car salesman, a saint (if not, perhaps, of the canonisabled variety). But I could see an unrepentant malefactor preferring oblivion to 'the alternative'!Axel_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

OT: New York, NY, March 26, 2013 – Week four of HISTORY’s THE BIBLE series continues to deliver blockbuster ratings for the network. THE BIBLE commanded HISTORY as #1 in all of television from 8-10pm, with 10.3 million total viewers. In addition, the series garnered 3.9 million Adults 25-54 and 3.4 million Adults 18-49. Upcoming on THE BIBLE: Sunday, March 31 (8:00pm-10:00pm ET) “Passion” – SERIES FINALE Easter Sunday episodes will show the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus through Ascension, Pentecost and Revelation. During this last episode, Peter denies Jesus and Judas hangs himself; the crowd clamors for Jesus’ death; Jesus is crucified, but when Mary Magdalene goes to his tomb, a figure walks towards her – he is back; Jesus commissions the disciples to “go and preach to all creation,” but their godly mission meets with hatred and even death; Paul has a vision and experiences a miraculous change of faith on a journey to Damascus; John receives a revelation – Jesus is coming back, and all who keep the faith will be rewarded. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/03/26/historys-the-bible-week-4-delivers-10-3-million-total-viewers/175021/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Tvbythenumbers+%28TVbytheNumbers%29 of note: Mark Burnett says 'weird things happened' on 'The Bible' set by Grady Smith “The hand of God was on this…. the edit came together perfectly, the actors came together perfectly, it just comes to life.” But Burnett wasn’t just speaking about how well the practicalities of production had gone. “Weird things happened during filming,” he said. “Everybody would look at each other like, “Whoa.”,,, A mighty desert wind “There’s a scene with Jesus and Nicodemus, when Nicodemus comes to Jesus in the night. It’s a very still night, not a breath of wind, and we’re on the edge of the Sahara desert in a palm grove in an oasis… Jesus says, ‘The Holy Spirit is like the wind.’ At that moment, a wind, like as if a 747 was taking off, blew his hair, almost blew the set over and sustained for 20 seconds across the desert, and the actors didn’t break — they kept going. And everything stopped. Everyone just looked at everyone like, ‘What just happened?’”,, http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/03/06/mark-burnett-bible-set/ of note: The Contradiction of the Cross “On the cross, our false dependencies are revealed. On the cross, our illusions are killed off. On the cross, our small self dies so that the true self, the God-given self, can emerge. On the cross, we give up the fantasy that we are in control, and the death of this fantasy is central to acceptance. The cross is, above all, a place of powerlessness. Here is the final proof that our own feeble powers can no more alter life’s trajectory than a magnet can pull down the moon. Here is the death of the ego, of the self that insists on being in charge, the self that continually tries to impose its own idea of order and righteousness on the world. The cross is a place of contradiction. For the powerlessness of the cross, if fully embraced, takes us to a place of power. This is the great mystery at the heart of the Christian faith, from Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr., the mystery of the power of powerlessness. As long as I am preoccupied with the marshaling of my own feeble powers, there will be no way for God’s power to flow through me. As long as I am getting in my own way, I cannot live in the power of God’s way.” – Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, Pg 46-47bornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Axel, If I die and find out there is only oblivion, I'll be very upset.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

I hope you're right Axel, for all our sakes.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Must have a look. Thanks. And thank goodness for such an initiative. Sounds a brilliant idea.Axel_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

semi related: Dr. John Lennox discusses the importance of attending the Westminster Conference on Science & Faith - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOPp47aBaqw Oxford University professor and world renowned scientist, speaker, author, and debater Dr. John Lennox discusses the importance of attending the Westminster Conference on Science & Faith, one of the world's largest symposia on science and faith, this year being held at Covenant Fellowship Church in Glenn Mills, PA (Greater Philadelphia), April 5-6, 2013, sponsored by the Pensmore Foundation. http://www.WCOSAF.combornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

But then, why should the ultimate truth not be something to be wished for, something to be hoped for, beautiful and inspiring? The notion that the truth is something cold, hard neutral, objective and unambiguous, is possibly scientism's most risible claim. The whole of Christ's gospel teachings predicate voluntarism. We know what we want to, and will be judged on our heart, not our head.Axel_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Well, that makes sense, even your acceptance of a diffuse kind of 'consciousness' without personal intervention, insofar as this is a level, our basic-assumption level, at which our will to believe/know plays a major role. We are all wishful thinkers in that sense. It happens - and why would it not? - that God made the world to fit the beliefs He has inspired in us; and, apart from the increasing amount of scientific evidence (I believe, 'proof') we generally believe we see it confirmed all the time all around us, in one way or another. That this too can be wishful thinking is demonstrated by the multiple ways we have of effectively repudiating our faith, however temporarily, when the going gets tough. I mean, frankly, to me and I believe, to many Christians we soon come to know with irrefragable certainty that the basic teachings of our catechism are, in fact, true. How many people do we know who blame the God they had come to love, for the sins of his institutional church? I did so myself in my youth.Axel_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Axel, I have no problem with invoking a god for the creation of the laws of physics. I just don't see good evidence of a god who constantly insert himself into the daily accounts of people, evolution, etc. However, I can accept, if the evidence is there, a force of "consciousness," as in quantum theory, which forms a part of the universe. How this consciousness expresses itself is another question.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

'In terms of a self-organizing universe,....' Doesn't self-organisation predicate intelligence? Can you deny that? Or are you a pantheist?Axel_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply