Can the mathematical and formal nature of physical law relationships be explained by physical and chemical interactions?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 11, 2011

Origin Of Life}

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

David R. Abel of the Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., says no. And also that the law he formulated on the subject has never been falsified, despite a number of journal publications. He posits it as The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency, as follows:

The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency states that physicochemical interactions are inadequate to explain the mathematical and formal nature of physical law relationships.

He offers his law for falsification.

“If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”

If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.

The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:

“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”

How can such a bold, dogmatic prediction possibly be made by any reputable scientist? The answer lies first in the fact that it is just a null hypothesis designed for open-minded testing.

Takers?

Comments

"Please show me the actual experiment where this is so" I think Behe's review summarizes those nicely. Here is a article where bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without loss of fitness: “strains with low- or no-cost resistance mutations are also the most frequent among clinical isolates.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1944.full These isolates have 8 mutations to RNA polymerase. Behe goes on about 2 in Malaria. Past the edge of evolution? Beyond X number of fCSIs or FITs or whatever?DrREC_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

DrREC, you keep, deceptively, insisting that Genetic Entropy has been violated; i.e. that functional information over and above what was already present in life was generated by purely material processes. Please show me the actual experiment where this is so; i.e. not a deletion, and/or compensatory, mutation experiment that deletes information first and lets 'hill climbing' compensate with for what was taken away, but an actual experiment that shows a 'parent' bacteria gaining completely novel functional information over and above what it already had; notes: For a broad outline of the ‘Fitness test’, required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro032491.html i.e.,, the fitness test must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it has gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits)(Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the much more constrained ’2 protein-protein binding site limit’, for functional information/complexity generation, found by Michael Behe in his book “The Edge Of Evolution”). Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 ====================== further notes: Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135: “Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite.” That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe – Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s026651.html “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”) Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking – Michael Behe – Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/nature_paper_finally_reaches_t026281.html When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.bornagain77_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

"Abel’s huypothesis is not about evolution." Maybe I should just concede that point, since I agree with it for a different reason. You lose what has been used here and elsewhere as a critique of evolution. Satisfied? I do think the instances of genetic algorithms, directed evolution, and nature creating information falsify at least key corollaries of Abel's hypothesis, as evidenced by quotes above, like: "Environmental selection cannot set configurable switches so as to achieve potential integrated circuits." Which seems falsified by the evolution of genetic control elements. or: "Spontaneous nontrivial algorithmic optimization is never observed in nature." Which likewise seems empirically false, depending on the definition of 'non-trivial.' But these quotes don't deal with evolution, right? What a false dichotomy, by the way. If information increases in natural processes in life, why not proto-life, as relates to abiogenesis? It seems silly to say Abel's hypothesis isn't about evolution, but it could be about the evolution of a protoreplicator, which Abel spends a good bit of time discussing e.g. "How far could such protolife evolve...." So lets move on. My main point continues to be that deleting selection from the RM+NS is silly. Look at some of these quotes: "-mutations do not program increased PI. -Mutations do not produce increased information -No empirical evidence exists of mere variation ever having generated sophisticated PI -If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise -Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification." What is utterly lacking or explicitly forbidden? Selection. Selection that is at the heart of evolution, and every serious biogenic proposal. So back to my last question-design a experiment, that if successful, would falsify Abel's hypothesis. One without selection or steering. How does this hypothesis get tested?DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Eric @ 48- Sorry, not avida, ev, and the quote/citation is linked at 45.DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Rec, at #40 What is the linked paper about? That is to say, if you read the paper, the words would form sentences and those sentences would convey meaning. What is that paper about? Here is the opening paragraph:
Many versions of a certain null hypothesis have been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the last decade with invitation to the world’s scientific community to falsify it (Abel, 2000, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005, Abel, 2006, Abel and Trevors, 2006, Abel, 2007, 2008, Abel, 2008, Abel, 2009, 2009, 2009, Abel, 2009, Abel, 2010, 2011, Trevors and Abel, 2004)
So it would appear that several challenges have been made by the author within the scientific literature, and that challenge involves the falsification of a hypothesis presented by the author. It would also seem there are several papers listed where that challenge has been published. One of those papers is the one I linked to. Here is that challenge in the paper:
Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
So what is this “FSC” he is challenging the scientific community to test? Is this challenge (obviously having something to do with “FSC”) a question of the ‘evolution’ of already-organized living systems, or is it about the ‘origins’ of the formalism that are observed to cause that organization? In the first section after the abstract is a section called background. Perhaps it offers a clue:
We can hypothesize that metabolism "just happened," independent of directions, in a prebiotic environment billions of years ago. But we can hypothesize anything. The question is whether such hypotheses are plausible. Plausibility is often eliminated when probabilities exceed the "universal probability bound" [132]. The stochastic "self-organization" of even the simplest biochemical pathways is statistically prohibitive by hundreds of orders of magnitude. Without algorithmic programming to constrain (more properly "control") options, the number of possible paths in sequence space for each needed biopolymer is enormous. 1015 molecules are often present in one test tube library of stochastic ensembles. But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemically cooperative manner, faith in "self-organization" becomes "blind belief." No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.
That seems to make it very clear what the challenge has been about, does it not? If not, we can look at another Abel publication linked from the article and take note the very first two sentences of the paper:
To what degree could chaos and complexity have organized a Peptide or RNA World of crude yet necessarily integrated protometabolism? How far could such protolife evolve in the absence of a heritable linear digital symbol system that could mutate, instruct, regulate, optimize and maintain metabolic homeostasis?
He asks the question “How far could such protolife evolve in the absence of a heritable linear digital symbol system that could mutate, instruct, regulate, optimize and maintain metabolic homeostasis?” and it would seem almost certain that this paper is set to explore that very question. I think we can be confident in that assumption. The parent of the word evolution (the word “evolve”) does in fact appear in this opening sentence, but it appears in the context of “how” did evolution occur “in the absence of” the formalized system that it requires in order to operate – which is the subject of the paper. In other words, the subject of the paper (which includes the aforementioned challenge) is the origins of the formalization necessary to the onset of evolution. Does this not seem clear? Perhaps we can look at yet another one of the papers linked in the article and find some additional clarity:
The naturalistic scientific community, and complexity theorists in particular, should collectively pursue falsification of the following null hypothesis: “Spontaneous nontrivial algorithmic optimization is never observed in nature apart from either 1) already existing biological prescriptive information, or 2) investigator involvement in experimental design.” Falsification of this null hypothesis could be achieved with a single exception.
Well, there’s that challenge once again, and what does it tell us? It seem rather clear that Dr Abel is talking about the appearance of “spontaneous nontrivial algorithmic optimization” arising apart from “already existing” biological information. Do you read it differently? If so, then how so? Now let us look at one more of those papers, this is the one where you lifted the quote and passed it off as one instance in “several” where Abel “applies the principle” (elucidated in his challenge) to evolution as opposed to origins. The quote you used comes from a section entitled “The Capabilities of Natural Selection”. That section begins with this:
Only existing genetic algorithms can be optimized. Prior to an algorithm having computational function, no basis exists for selection in nature. So the question becomes, "How did any computational program arise in nature? Computation is formal, not physical. Natural selection cannot generate formalisms. It can only prefer the results of formal computations-already living organisms. What would be the basis of natural selection for a half-written program that does not yet compute? Even if a formal computational program were to somehow spontaneously arise, why would an inanimate environment value and preserve it? The only basis for natural selection from the start was survival of the fittest already-living organisms. But no organism exists without hundreds of cooperating formal algorithms all organized into one holistic scheme.
Well, I don’t know what you call a fair reading, but it seems that Dr Abel is going out of his way to provide a clear distinction about his interests. It seems very clear to me that he is talking about the formal requirements prior to any existing “already living” organism. He says “Only existing genetic algorithms can be optimized. Prior to an algorithm having computational function, no basis exists for selection in nature.” Is this a statement you wish to challenge? And this is where we come to your quote of Abel’s which you use to suggest that, foregoing all the thousands of words dealing with origins, he is actually talking about evolution instead: “Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution”. But I wanted to know what you left out of your quote. So here is the actual text:
Natural selection resembles public consumption of the best available software. The programming details and methodology of production are of no interest to the purchasers of software. Pre-programmed, bug-free, superior utility is the only criterion of public selection. The consumer plays no role whatever in the writing or refinement of the program's computational efficiency. The finished product with the best reputation, availability, and lowest cost becomes "the fittest species." Just as consumers are oblivious to how the best software was produced, natural selection is oblivious to how the fittest species was produced. Natural selection offers no explanation whatever for programming at the genetic level. Similarly, natural selection does not explain the derivation of the many cooperative computational processes leading up to the origin of life. Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov's papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka's work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon "information." All of the above work correlates well with Weiss et al (73) finding only 1% deviation from randomness in coding regions. One cannot increase "information" (really "uncertainty") very much when starting from only 1% deviation from randomness in the coding regions. Only 1% deviation from randomness is already nearly maxed out in uncertainty. How did a text that deviates only slightly from seeming randomness get so instructional and biofunctional? Clearly, mere combinatorial uncertainty is not going to explain the phenomenon of cybernetic genetic prescription. No empirical evidence exists of mere variation ever having generated sophisticated PI, computational halting, or cybernetic integration of large numbers of pathways and cycles, or the achievement of metabolic goals.
Are you kidding me Dr Rec? This passage is what you say proves your point? A passage where Abel simply cites a congruent finding to a description he is making – one which doesn’t even affect his primary challenge? It would seem that your problem is not with Abel and his challenge, but is with the evidence provided by Mira, and Petrov, and Konopka, and Weiss instead. So let’s look at your next example: “No fittest organisms exist for the environment to favor without prior computational haltings on many cooperative levels” And again here is the actual text:
The GS Principle states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to explain the generation of polynucleotide and polycodon linear digital prescription. Organismic/phenotypic selection (natural selection) cannot prescribe the linear digital programming of coded genetic instructions. Environmental selection cannot set configurable switches so as to achieve potential integrated circuits. Selection pressure is after the fact of computational halting. No fittest organisms exist for the environment to favor without prior computational haltings on many cooperative levels.
What Dr Abel is saying here is there are two types of selection, one at the oganismic level during natural selection, but also one that is unaccounted for at the genetic level which leads to the origin of function. He is pointing out that one does not explain the other. Is this something you have empirical evidence otherwise Dr Rec, or is this a valid statement? And as to your final quote: “Means is totally lacking for evolution to occur at the programming level.” Here we can again put the quote back into context of the author and understand what is being conveyed.
What about the 3rd criterion of selection: means? With natural selection, the means is differential survival and reproduction of already living organisms. But at the genetic programming level in a prebiotic world, no life or differential survival exist yet. Means is totally lacking for evolution to occur at the programming level.
Geez…Dr Rec. Apparently you just can’t help yourself. You’ve pulled out a quote SPECIFICALLY ABOUT origins and have shoehorned it into your very own context. But since we are here, can you provide the empirical evidence of the means that natural selection could use to select for something prior to anything selectable existing? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Like I said Dr Rec, and this will now be the third time, perhaps it’s a charm: Abel’s huypothesis is not about evolution. By the way, if you’d like to not be insulted, then clean out your ears and stop insulting the record.Upright BiPed_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

DrRec: "Dembski sees as a source of active information in Avida" Holy cow! Can you give us the citation for that. Dembski was extremely critical of Avida (silly little program that it was).Eric Anderson_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

DrREC, you, my man, are playing extremely fast and loose with words here. "Active Information" represents 'programmed/preselected selection' for fitness at decision node levels. The program is set up to steer the result to a desired outcome, yet Darwinism has no such foresight of a 'desired' outcome. That is what makes it 'artificial selection'. Moreover you know this for you are not a dummy. Do you really think of any of Behe's gain examples as 'sophisticated' function. You really must be desperate for any kind of evidence to think as such! Do you want to go through each example Behe cites and let every one see just how pathetic the examples are for what you are trying to claim???bornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

"How does selecting between two equally likely symbols or messages increase information? If they are equally likely, isn’t the “information content” the same, by definition" Mung, lets not play games with different definitions of information. 26 letters in the alphabet, lets call it equal probability of striking them on a keyboard. A random string takes the same number of bits to send to me in an email as a proper sentence of the same length, but functionally, one contains meaningful information and one doesn't. Your selection from equally likely symbols has provided meaning to your post.DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

I see we've thrown another hurdle up: "non-trivial." I can't read Behe's mind and decide what he thinks would be non-trivial. If it is a large increase in fitness, or survival vs. non-survival of a species in an environment, I'd say that seems pretty non-trivial to me. And yes, Behe describes a number of "gain-of-FCT” adaptive mutation is a mutation that produces a specific, new, functional coded element while adapting an organism to its environment." And yes, Dembski sees selection in computer programs as a source of active information: "We show this by demonstrating that there are at least five sources of active information in ev....Optimization by Mutation. This process discards mutations with low fitness and propagates those with high fitness." http://evoinfo.org/papers/vivisection_of_ev.pdf So if discarding mutations with low fitness, and propagating those with high fitness (selection) is a source of "active information" in ev, why isn't it a source of information in nature?DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

How does selecting between two equally likely symbols or messages increase information? If they are equally likely, isn't the "information content" the same, by definition?Mung_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

DrREC, REALLY? citing Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski to say purely material processes can generate 'non-trivial information??? While you at it, why don't you just go ahead and say the apostle Paul believed in Darwinism??? Do you think that Dr. Behe would classify any of his 'gain in function' examples as 'non-trivial'??? The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.htmlbornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Upright- No need to insult. You've read all the linked papers? Then you must have read several where Abel applies this principle to evolution, with some very familiar sounding rhetoric: "Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution" "No fittest organisms exist for the environment to favor without prior computational haltings on many cooperative levels." "Means is totally lacking for evolution to occur at the programming level." My point is that if information DOES increase in natural and artificial selection (as even Behe admits, and Dembski sees as a source of active information in Avida) it falsifies the application of this principle to evolution. And here, and elsewhere, I have seen it applied to evolution. You argue the hypothesis doesn't apply to evolution to begin with, linking to the first of Abel's papers that deals with abiogenesis. I agree, though for a different reason-removing selection from the allowed set of experiments is inane if evolution or abiogenesis is being tested, and impossibly hamstrings the researcher. Maybe you could propose an experiment to test this hypothesis (which has nothing to do with evolution) that is devoid of design or selection (no behind the scenes steering). I don't think such an experiment can exist.DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

more notes on the extreme complexity of the first life The evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of 'photosynthetic' life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks. U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R Moreover, evidence for 'sulfate reducing' bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria: When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010 Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria. http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth Thus we now have fairly conclusive evidence for bacterial life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth. The simplest photosynthetic life on earth is exceedingly complex, too complex to happen by accident even if the primeval oceans had been full of pre-biotic soup. The Miracle Of Photosynthesis - electron transport - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_WKgnL6MI Electron transport and ATP synthesis during photosynthesis - Illustration http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.figgrp.1672 There is actually a molecular motor, that surpasses man made motors in engineering parameters, that is integral to the photosynthetic process: Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706 The ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4 The photosynthetic process is clearly a irreducible complex condition: "There is no question about photosynthesis being Irreducibly Complex. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll? and if they did not, how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?" Uncommon Descent Blogger Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html Of note: anoxygenic (without oxygen) photosynthesis is even more of a complex chemical pathway than oxygenic photosynthesis is: "Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form."; Hugh Ross also of note: Anaerobic organisms, that live without oxygen, and most viruses are quickly destroyed by direct contact with oxygen. In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on, seems to be designed right into the foundation of this universe. This is because photosynthetic life is found to actually use the foundational quantum mechanical principles of this universe to accomplish its photosynthesis. Once again it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the universe was designed with life in mind from its creation. Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Gregory S. Engel, Nature (12 April 2007) Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit the excitation energy to reaction centres, where long term energy storage is initiated.,,,, This wavelike characteristic of the energy transfer within the photosynthetic complex can explain its extreme efficiency, in that it allows the complexes to sample vast areas of phase space to find the most efficient path. ---- Conclusion? Obviously Photosynthesis is a brilliant piece of design by "Someone" who even knows how quantum mechanics works. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429397 Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis: Algae Familiar With These Processes for Nearly Two Billion Years - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: "We were astonished to find clear evidence of long-lived quantum mechanical states involved in moving the energy. Our result suggests that the energy of absorbed light resides in two places at once -- a quantum superposition state, or coherence -- and such a state lies at the heart of quantum mechanical theory.",,, "It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans," says Scholes. Life Masters Physics - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Collini et al.2 report evidence suggesting that a process known as quantum coherence ‘wires’ together distant molecules in the light-harvesting apparatus of marine cryptophyte algae.,,,“Intriguingly, recent work has documented that light-absorbing molecules in some photosynthetic proteins capture and transfer energy according to quantum-mechanical probability laws instead of classical laws at temperatures up to 180 K,”. ,,, “This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures.”bornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

further notes for you to ignore Elizabeth; The evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of 'photosynthetic' life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks. U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R Moreover, evidence for 'sulfate reducing' bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria: When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010 Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria. http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth Thus we now have fairly conclusive evidence for bacterial life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth. The simplest photosynthetic life on earth is exceedingly complex, too complex to happen by accident even if the primeval oceans had been full of pre-biotic soup. The Miracle Of Photosynthesis - electron transport - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_WKgnL6MI Electron transport and ATP synthesis during photosynthesis - Illustration http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.figgrp.1672 There is actually a molecular motor, that surpasses man made motors in engineering parameters, that is integral to the photosynthetic process: Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706 The ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4 The photosynthetic process is clearly a irreducible complex condition: "There is no question about photosynthesis being Irreducibly Complex. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll? and if they did not, how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?" Uncommon Descent Blogger Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html Of note: anoxygenic (without oxygen) photosynthesis is even more of a complex chemical pathway than oxygenic photosynthesis is: "Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form."; Hugh Ross also of note: Anaerobic organisms, that live without oxygen, and most viruses are quickly destroyed by direct contact with oxygen. In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on, seems to be designed right into the foundation of this universe. This is because photosynthetic life is found to actually use the foundational quantum mechanical principles of this universe to accomplish its photosynthesis. Once again it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the universe was designed with life in mind from its creation. Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Gregory S. Engel, Nature (12 April 2007) Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit the excitation energy to reaction centres, where long term energy storage is initiated.,,,, This wavelike characteristic of the energy transfer within the photosynthetic complex can explain its extreme efficiency, in that it allows the complexes to sample vast areas of phase space to find the most efficient path. ---- Conclusion? Obviously Photosynthesis is a brilliant piece of design by "Someone" who even knows how quantum mechanics works. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429397 Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis: Algae Familiar With These Processes for Nearly Two Billion Years - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: "We were astonished to find clear evidence of long-lived quantum mechanical states involved in moving the energy. Our result suggests that the energy of absorbed light resides in two places at once -- a quantum superposition state, or coherence -- and such a state lies at the heart of quantum mechanical theory.",,, "It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans," says Scholes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203131356.htm Life Masters Physics - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Collini et al.2 report evidence suggesting that a process known as quantum coherence ‘wires’ together distant molecules in the light-harvesting apparatus of marine cryptophyte algae.,,,“Intriguingly, recent work has documented that light-absorbing molecules in some photosynthetic proteins capture and transfer energy according to quantum-mechanical probability laws instead of classical laws at temperatures up to 180 K,”. ,,, “This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100210abornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, your entire last post is playing with hypotheticals with no solid evidence, whereas I have many lines of solid evidence pointing out that life started out extremely complex, and STAYED that way, whereas you have nothing but imagination.bornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

My point was to try to understand the criteria Abel was setting for falsfication. But talking about being "misleading with the evidence": my view is that the evidence you cite in support of the claim that "we have solid evidence for believing the first ‘simple’ life on earth is just as complex as bacteria are today" is not, well, solid. This is because the Last Common Ancestor is not the "First Simple Life". Therefore, evidence regarding the properties of the Last Common Ancestor doesn't tell you what the properties were of the First Simple Life.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, you have a point other than to be severely misleading with the evidence?bornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

ba77: I think you missed my point. Not to worry.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, that is a mighty big 'if' for you to leave dangling, with absolutely no evidence to support you conjecture, yet since we have solid evidence for believing the first 'simple' life on earth is just as complex as bacteria are today, then perhaps you would like to quit playing with such unsupportable musings of your imagination? Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html Life - Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513 Moreover, because of Shannon channel capacity, the first DNA code of life on earth had to be at least as complex as the current DNA code found in life: Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/ “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature. http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code DNA - The Genetic Code - Optimal Error Minimization & Parallel Codes - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491422 Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf Ode to the Code - Brian Hayes The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world. https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ode-to-the-code/4 Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) “Although the tiniest living things known to science, bacterial cells, are incredibly small (10^-12 grams), each is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world”. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines "We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today,,, Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each which is composed of a set of large protein machines." Bruce Alberts: Former President, National Academy of Sciences; Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330bornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

ba77
Elizabeth you state: ‘So I guess finding life-forms far simpler than the simplest modern cells in a meteor, for example, would do it?’ And perhaps you would care to produce actual evidence for ‘simple’ life on a meteor? ,, Instead of just making an insinuation that the evidence exists???
No, I was "insinuating" no such thing. I was merely asking whether, if it was found, it would count as a falsification.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

And hey Dr Rec ... when you figure out how far off the mark you were, please don't come back here and blame the misunderstanding on anyone else. We all make mistakes, but this one of yours could have been avoided by doing 15 minutes of reading, as was suggested above.Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Dr Rec,
Uppy- What am I supposed to do when: ““Evolution” simply takes for granted the system that allows it to work – or has evolution been promoted to a theory of the origin of living systems now?”" Is followed immediately by: “How much evidence do you have for a living system sans information? Specifically, what actual empirical evidence documents that inanimate matter can indeed organize itself into a metabolizing entity, with replication, without the onset of informational. constraint? Have any of that?” So your reply is that evolution does not deal with abiogenesis (ok), but I must first answer abiogenesis to falsify Abel’s hypothesis regarding evolution. Love it.
All that effort, yet its still both painfully and immediately obvious that you haven't read what it is you are critisizing; you don't know what you are talking about. You can trust me on this because I've read every paper cited by that article. Are you ready, hopefully more ready than the first time I told you this: Abel's hypothesis is not about evolution. Did you get it that time? I know you want to make it about evolution, but as I already told you, that just means you are, well, wrong. Go to the linked page and cut and paste the comments that mention evolution, and when you can't do that because there aren't any, perhaps then you'll better understand.
To reiterate, Abel is asking us to remove selection from evolution. RM+NS, but hold the NS. It is silly, both on a theoretical and practical level: “”If decision-node programming selections are made randomly” Well, that doesn’t sound right? Selection should be random? And we should remove artificial selection from directed evolution experiments?
Gawd, Rec, just stop. This is completely unnecessary. You are so badly misinformed on this. GO READ THE DATA, its published online for free. Start gere: Google "Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and their Relevance to Biopolymeric Sequencing".Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Uppy- What am I supposed to do when: "“Evolution” simply takes for granted the system that allows it to work – or has evolution been promoted to a theory of the origin of living systems now?"" Is followed immediately by: "How much evidence do you have for a living system sans information? Specifically, what actual empirical evidence documents that inanimate matter can indeed organize itself into a metabolizing entity, with replication, without the onset of informational. constraint? Have any of that?" So your reply is that evolution does not deal with abiogenesis (ok), but I must first answer abiogenesis to falsify Abel's hypothesis regarding evolution. Love it. To reiterate, Abel is asking us to remove selection from evolution. RM+NS, but hold the NS. It is silly, both on a theoretical and practical level: ""If decision-node programming selections are made randomly" Well, that doesn't sound right? Selection should be random? And we should remove artificial selection from directed evolution experiments? But let's get back to the evidence: If artificial selection was allowed for, directed evolution or a genetic algorithm nicely demonstrate gains of information. But these (as Dembski also argues) sneak in active information in the form of selection. What is different between this selection and natural selection? Seriously. No one seems to have an answer why a selection is a source of 'active information' in a program, but not in nature. But you've got to dismiss it, because it generates information. Right? Or is ID ok with gains of information through natural processes (contra odd interpretations of the 2nd law and all related hooey). So I turned to Behe's selected cases of gain of information in nature. Natural selection? Is that allowed for? Since it gets really hard to argue information has not increased, you throw in a few more wrinkles, and boot the whole thing to an origin of life issue, which I still can't use selection or design in trying to experimentally address. Don't hold your breath looking for a falsification if these are the terms. Again, if I'm misreading Abel, please tell me exactly what the terms of the falsification are--must I perform an undesigned experiment? Lol. Smuggling in design otherwise! And no, I don't think it is silly to bring up methodological naturalism when the experimental falsification of a hypothesis you propose would depend on it. I can't say design was not involved in the result I observe if we don't presuppose MN. I don't se the 'he he' in my query-it is a very serious issue to dispose of mn, and attempt to proceed with falsifying a hypothesis. And I'm glad you seemingly accept it, too. You might want to clue in a few of your peers: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-evolutionists-don%e2%80%99t-understand-about-methodological-naturalism/DrREC_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

lol @27Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

DrRec @11: "The other curiosity of the original post is that Abel’s test adheres to methodological naturalism . . ." Naturally! The question is whether this naturalism is up to the task, so of course the test has to be conducted on those grounds. What would you propose? That we have a designing intelligence produce the computational/algorithmic utility and then argue, I don't know what, that it proves something . . . about . . . hmmm . . . We already know that a designing intelligence can produce such artifacts -- we do it all the time. The question is whether a purely materialistic process can do it. So the experiment has to be carried out on those grounds.Eric Anderson_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Dr Rec, I missed your post at 11 earlier.
The other curiosity of the original post is that Abel’s test adheres to methodological naturalism, which is often rejected here.
Oh come now Doc, you can’t be serious. That remark seems awfully opportunistic. ID is tied at the hip to an understanding of cause and effect in nature. Like the intellectual refugees one has to be, we actually acknowledge the documented limits of chance contingency and physical law on those observations, and we try to get you fine folks to do the same. Of course Abel’s test adheres to methodological naturalism. If you are operating under the assumption that the problem centers around trying to understand the material forces that work on physical objects, then you are simply mistaken. I can assure you that the proposition of design does not break any of those laws. One of the reasons it doesn’t is because there is nothing in the physical evidence that confirms a departure from physical law. Consequently, that would mean the theory is tied directly to the physical evidence itself, and it has the discipline to stop before going into areas it cannot go. As an exercise in empiricism, this would seem to be something that any rational person should appreciate. The problem, Dr Rec, rears its ugly head when methodological naturalism morphs into philosophical materialism, particularly militant materialism, and stages a coup d’etat on rationality and science. Such a take-over attempts to enforce an unsupported assumption in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Since there is no falsifiable test of the materialists claim that chance and necessity are the only causal forces that exist, then that particular unsupported assumption cannot logically be used as a roadblock to the pursuit of other scientific explanations, particularly those that break no physical laws and have significant observable evidence that backs them up. So Doc, the next time you think that ID is anti scientific method, you can cash out on that deal. In return, you can keep your eyes open, and you’ll see that it is the opponents of ID that most love to cross the line where discipline otherwise says to stop.
If we observed, in a test tube, a system that meets his criteria, how could we conclude the result was not the outcome of a designer beyond our detection?
he he … See what I mean?
How casually you assume methodological naturalism, then reject it equally casually.
You mean we’re all good when we talk about the evidence and practice methodological naturalism, but when we talk about the efficacy of chance and law we must alter our logic and reason. Must we first agree to limit the discussion in adherence to the unsupported assumption of philosophical materialism? I don’t think you’ll get many takers on the deal around here. Your reasons get flung up on the wall on a daily basis to see what sticks. But they have nothing to do with the observations themselves, and therefore don’t answer the questions.Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

I have a very simple question for our atheistic neo-Darwinian commentators; If all information in life 'emerges' from a material basis, as you guys dogmatically maintain it does, please tell me what happens to the highest levels of information upon death??? Why does this highest level of information suddenly go missing??? The particles are still there in the same configurations immediately before and after death, So why is the information suddenly not there if the particles are still there??? The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings Myself, I have strong reason to believe this highest level of 'quantum information' still exists: 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, just like the first law of thermodynamics (conservation law) states that it is impossible to create or destroy energy by material processes quantum information shows a 'higher level' of conservation than energy does: i.e. it is 'more impossible' for material processes to create quantum information than it is for material processes to create energy!!! Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html This 'conservation of quantum information is a real bummer for the neo-Darwinists, since, as I referenced earlier, quantum information is now found to be in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

No. Pointing to the mere *existence* of life as proof for *how* that life came about is purely circular. Let's see some of those nucleotides forming into a chain of DNA or RNA that contains a coherent message. Or let's see some of those amino acids coming together to form a simple, functional protein. Shoot, let's see any kind of meaningful gain in CSI from purely natural processes.Eric Anderson_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth you state: 'So I guess finding life-forms far simpler than the simplest modern cells in a meteor, for example, would do it?' And perhaps you would care to produce actual evidence for 'simple' life on a meteor? ,, Instead of just making an insinuation that the evidence exists???bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Looking through these responses....clearly, there are a lot of people who either don't know what they are talking about, or are giving the most uncharitable reading possible, or simply need to do some studying.Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply