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

_{News
August 11, 2011

Origin Of Life

2}_{Categories
Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Upright BiPed:
This is the EXACT issue I gave to Dr Liddle; how does the driver of function (information, programming) come to be set by law, when law itself plays no role in the foundational requirements for the existence at that information (as can be observed by its entailments). Bless her heart.
Well, if my proposal is acceptable, I'm happy to go ahead. I guess I'd better check out that thread again. *takes pulse*Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson:
Let’s just see some good examples of this occurring spontaneously. That would be enough to satsify almost all of us that it can occur naturally. No need to discuss invisible agents.
OK. So I guess finding life-forms far simpler than the simplest modern cells in a meteor, for example, would do it?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
Abel’s hypothesis seems to me to be unfalsifiable.
So you missed Upright BiPed’s post @5? Why is it that your proposed demonstration of the generation of information from Chance + Necessity sans Intelligence would not falsify Abel’s hypothesis as well as falsifying ID? Is Abel’s hypothesis and that of ID so different?
No, it isn't, but Upright BiPed didn't include this clause:
Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification.
I'm not exactly sure what Abel means by that, but I would certainly be designing my starting conditions so as to make the desired outcome more likely. If Abel wouldn't count that as "behind the scenes steering" I withdraw my charge.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Doc at #10,
1) I don’t accept that Abel’s thesis relates solely to origin of life issues. In the linked article he says: “Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility…
You are not prohibited from conflating the two. It doesn’t mean anything, other than you are wrong. Go read Abel’s work.
think you’re conceding a lot of ground, and reducing your position to an origin of life one. It is apparent novel functions/information can and do emerge. Evolution.
"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?
So now you want origin of information system (life)? Separate issue, but one being worked on.
Separate issue? 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?
2) The removal of selection applies equally to origin of life issues. For any chance of success, pre-biotic replicators would have to be iteratively selected for by fitness.
That statement assumes its conclusion. Selection? Yes. By fitness? Assumption. Alternative hypothesis? Selection for fitness. You simply assume the contrary.
Abel will claim this is inserting selection (design) into the experiment, and therefore not a falsification.
You are confused, so you make assertions as to what Abel would claim. Go read his work. Look for phrases like “selection for fitness” or “choice contingency” or “volitional agency”.
3) Perhaps this demonstrates why ID fails-selection, be it natural or artificial, is not random with respect to outcome.
LOL. Not only do you like to move your conclusions ahead of argument, but your points have become trivial. Why should ID suggest that an outcome of design be anything other than non-random?
It ends up having equivalent impact as a designer-it increases information. Abel essentially equates the two, seeing selection as “behind the scenes steering.”
Your train is now so far off the track your destination has come into question. Are you referring to this sentence by Abel: “Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification.” Are you suggesting by this that Abel won’t allow the researcher to choose what color lab coat to wear? Give me a break, what a pathetic reading. Surely you are more on the stick than that Doc? No wonder Abel’s challenge remains unmet (as does mine, come to think of it).Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Abel’s hypothesis seems to me to be unfalsifiable.
So you missed Upright BiPed's post @5? Why is it that your proposed demonstration of the generation of information from Chance + Necessity sans Intelligence would not falsify Abel's hypothesis as well as falsifying ID? Is Abel's hypothesis and that of ID so different?Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth @13: "And if we observed it occuring spontaneously with no apparent intelligent input, how would we rule out an invisible intelligent agent?" C'mon. You don't have to demonstrate the utter absence of invisible/unknown agents. That is a silly extension of the question at hand. Let's just see some good examples of this occurring spontaneously. That would be enough to satsify almost all of us that it can occur naturally. No need to discuss invisible agents.Eric Anderson_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

As to concrete not being shown to be 'abstract'; In post 6 it is shown that transcendent information is 'concrete', not abstract as information is usually thought of being; https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/can-the-mathematical-and-formal-nature-of-physical-law-relationships-be-explained-by-physical-and-chemical-interactions/comment-page-1/#comment-395198 Moreover 'transcendent' information, which is usually only thought of as abstract, is shown to exercise dominion of 'concrete' matter and energy here: Here are a few experiments establishing the 'information theoretic' origin of this universe, as well as establishing the information theoretic 'sustaining' of this universe; 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 ,,,This following experiment shows that the teleportation of 'infinite' information is instantaneous;,,, 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 ,,,Whereas this experiment 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 ,,,The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) 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 ,,,Moreover, when the wave state (superposition), which is defined as infinite information, collapses to its particle state, it turns out that the particle state can only convey one bit of information to any particular observer in the universe at a time: 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. 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 John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. 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. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

As to 'abstract'; In post 6 it is shown that transcendent information is 'concrete', not abstract; https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/can-the-mathematical-and-formal-nature-of-physical-law-relationships-be-explained-by-physical-and-chemical-interactions/comment-page-1/#comment-395198 Moreover 'transcendent' information, which is usually only thought od as abstract, is shown to exercise dominion of 'concrete' matter and energy here: Here are a few experiments establishing the 'information theoretic' origin of this universe, as well as establishing the information theoretic 'sustaining' of this universe; 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 ,,,This following experiment shows that the teleportation of 'infinite' information is instantaneous;,,, 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 ,,,Whereas this experiment 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 ,,,The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) 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 ,,,Moreover, when the wave state (superposition), which is defined as infinite information, collapses to its particle state, it turns out that the particle state can only convey one bit of information to any particular observer in the universe at a time: 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 John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. 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. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Here are the 'gain of function' mutations From Behe's paper: EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS, AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION” Excerpt: Hb S 6 glu val G Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) Growth on d-arabinose of E. coli Either constitutive expression of fucose genes, or dual control of regulator protein by l-fucose and d-arabinose Viruses manipulated to be defective Deletion of 19 intercistronic nucleotides from RNA virus MS2 containing Shine-Dalgarno sequence and two hairpins One revertant deleted 6 nucleotides; another duplicated an adjoining 14- nucleotide sequence; missing functional coded elements substantially restored G,G Olsthoorn and van Duin (1996) 4 nucleotide deletion in lysis gene of MS2 Reading frame restored by deletions, insertions G,G Licis and van Duin (2006) http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf Perhaps I may be excused for being severely underwhelmed at these paltry results from the Almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution to generate functional information. Also of note, these 'gains of functional information' come no where near Abel's plausibility metric: The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Gregory Chaitin, of Algorithmic Information Theory fame, has an answer of sorts in the works. In Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical, to be published in 2012; "Chaitin develops a mathematical scheme that can explain life itself and he also explores metabiology, a new way of thinking about biological science that highlights the mathematical structures underpinning the biological world." You can download a PDF of a paper that introduces his approach here.rhampton7_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Well, obviously no scientist can set out to falsify this, or they'd be disqualified on the basis of having provided intelligent input. And if we observed it occuring spontaneously with no apparent intelligent input, how would we rule out an invisible intelligent agent? Abel's hypothesis seems to me to be unfalsifiable.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Nothing concrete will ever be shown to be abstract. 1 sheep, 2 sheep, 3 sheep ...Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

The other curiosity of the original post is that Abel's test adheres to methodological naturalism, which is often rejected here. 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? How casually you assume methodological naturalism, then reject it equally casually.DrREC_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

A couple of points: 1) I don't accept that Abel's thesis relates solely to origin of life issues. In the linked article he says: "Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility." Clearly in the gain-of-functional information cases Behe lists, we're seeing some steering and optimization of success, no? I think you're conceding a lot of ground, and reducing your position to an origin of life one. It is apparent novel functions/information can and do emerge. Evolution. So now you want origin of information system (life)? Separate issue, but one being worked on. 2) The removal of selection applies equally to origin of life issues. For any chance of success, pre-biotic replicators would have to be iteratively selected for by fitness. Abel will claim this is inserting selection (design) into the experiment, and therefore not a falsification. 3) Perhaps this demonstrates why ID fails-selection, be it natural or artificial, is not random with respect to outcome. It ends up having equivalent impact as a designer-it increases information. Abel essentially equates the two, seeing selection as "behind the scenes steering."DrREC_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I am failing to see the point.
No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.
Let's call that "Abel's thesis." I hereby offer my own thesis: Nothing concrete will ever be shown to be abstract. Duh! It seems to me that Abel's thesis is a trivial consequence.Neil Rickert_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

DrRec, Behe's observations don't falsify Abel's null, no more than a glitch in program code explains the existence of a computer running on software. Again, you simply assume the system that must be explained.Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

To dovetail into Dembski and Marks's work on Conservation of Information;,,, LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,,Encoded classical information, such as what we find in computer programs, and yes as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'transcendent' quantum information by the following method:,,, This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; 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 ,,,And here is the empirical confirmation 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.htmlbornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

DrREC, despite your claim for 'gain in functional information', there ar in fact no 'non-trivial' gains that would falsify the universal probability Bound of 1 in 10^150. And yet despite your disingenuousness to face the evidence squarely, and admit to the reasonable falsification that Behe's paper renders to neo-Darwinian evolution, falsification of neo-Darwinian evolution has been forthcoming from a more 'foundational' area of science that is more complete and devastating in its falsification; Neo-Darwinian evolution purports to explain all the wondrously amazing complexity of life on earth by reference solely to chance and necessity processes acting on energy and matter (i.e. purely material processes). In fact neo-Darwinian evolution makes the grand materialistic claim that the staggering levels of unmatched complex functional information we find in life, and even the ‘essence of life’ itself, simply ‘emerged’ from purely material processes. And even though this basic scientific point, of the ability of purely material processes to generate even trivial levels of complex functional information, has spectacularly failed to be established, we now have a much greater proof, than this stunning failure for validation, that ‘put the lie’ to the grand claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. This proof comes from the fact that it is now shown from quantum mechanics that ‘information’ is its own unique ‘physical’ entity. A physical entity that is shown to be completely independent of any energy-matter space-time constraints, i.e. it does not ‘emerge’ from a material basis. Moreover this ‘transcendent information’ is shown to be dominant of energy-matter in that this ‘information’ is shown to be the entity that is in fact constraining the energy-matter processes of the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. notes: Falsification of neo-Darwinism; First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – July 2010 Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1 Quantum Information confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 =========================bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

DrRec, you completely misunderstand the issue with flying colors, David is not talking about environmental feedback, which simply assumes what must be explained. That is the materialist's tack since 1859, through to the discovery of informational constraint in molecular biology in the 1950's, and onward through to August 11 2011 - some 150 years later. He is talking about the foundation for function AT ALL. This is the EXACT issue I gave to Dr Liddle; how does the driver of function (information, programming) come to be set by law, when law itself plays no role in the foundational requirements for the existence at that information (as can be observed by its entailments). Bless her heart.Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

bornagain77- It is really curious you keep citing that paper of Behe's. In it, he lists a number of examples where information is gained in evolution (which we're told never happens, right?). The definition Behe proposes is: "“gain-of-FCT” adaptive mutation is a mutation that produces a specific, new, functional coded element while adapting an organism to its environment. The construction by mutation of a new promoter, intron/exon splice site, or protein processing site are gain-of-FCT mutations. " These examples should falsify the Able's null hypothesis, except that (natural) selection was present.DrREC_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

DrREC states: 'I think there is a clever bit of phrasing here that makes the falsification to the null hypothesis nearly impossible, and that renders it wholly irrelevant to evolution.' This is clearly false, and in fact neo-Darwinian evolution is formulated in such a 'non-falsifiable' fashion as DrREC tried to slander this null with; Dr. Behe clearly highlights the difference here: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum - March 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html ================== Further notes: Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and “the first rule of adaptive evolution” - Michael J. Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades. I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/656902 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Epistasis between Beneficial Mutations - July 2011 Excerpt: We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations. https://uncommondescent.com/epigenetics/darwins-beneficial-mutations-do-not-benefit-each-other/ Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 etc.. etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

I think there is a clever bit of phrasing here that makes the falsification to the null hypothesis nearly impossible, and that renders it wholly irrelevant to evolution. It appears as: "decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent" or "Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification." Of course, the input for selection is random, but selection, be it natural or artificial, is not. How can we run a genetic algorithm or directed evolution experiment without "artificial selection hidden in the experimental design" that would "disqualify the experimental falsification." The experiment Able proposes requests whether complexity can emerge through randomization alone.DrREC_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

It is of interest to note that a million dollar prize is tied semi-directly to the falsification of this null-hypothesis: "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s). http://lifeorigin.info/ also of note, is that rather than falsifying the null hypothesis, I have seen a few neo-Darwinists take the tactic of questioning whether the million dollar prize is valid or not: Yet,,, 'The ability of the Foundation to underwrite these payments and to administer the Project is monitored by the well-known accounting firm of Young, Brophy & Duncan, PC, Certified Public Accountants.' further note: Peer-reviewed publications of David L. Abel http://davidlabel.blogspot.com/bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2