Home » Biology, Design inference, Intelligent Design, News » Irrational reasons for refusing to consider design …

Irrational reasons for refusing to consider design …

From our moral and intellectual superiors, no less.

From Granville Sewell’s In the Beginning:

A recent (November 10, 2008) article in News at Princeton entitled “Evolution’s New Wrinkle: Proteins with Cruise Control Provide New Perspective,” reports on research by four Princeton scientists, published in a Physical Review Letters article:”
The experiments, conducted in Princeton’s Frick Laboratory, focused on a complex of proteins located in the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell. … Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins’ behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. …

he authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. …

Chakrabarti said. “Control theory offers a direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and indicates that evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows.”

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design,…

Oh, why not?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to Irrational reasons for refusing to consider design …

  1. Notes:

    Mitochondria – Molecular Machine – Powerhouse Of The Cell – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5510941/

    Proteins have now been shown to have a ‘Cruise Control’ mechanism, which works to ‘self-correct’ the integrity of the protein structure from any random mutations imposed on them.

    Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
    “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
    http://www.princeton.edu/main/...../60/95O56/

    Cruise Control permeating the whole of the protein structure??? This is an absolutely fascinating discovery. The equations of calculus involved in achieving even a simple process control loop, such as a dynamic cruise control loop, are very complex. In fact it seems readily apparent to me that highly advanced mathematical information must reside along the entirety of the protein structure, in order to achieve such control. This fact gives us clear evidence that there is far more functional information residing in proteins than meets the eye. Moreover this ‘oneness’ of cruise control, within the protein structure, can only be achieved through quantum computation/entanglement principles, and is inexplicable to the reductive materialistic approach of neo-Darwinism! For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site:

    PID controller
    A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

    It is in realizing the staggering level of engineering that must be dealt with to achieve ‘cruise control’ for each individual protein that it becomes apparent even Axe’s 1 in 10^77 estimate for finding specific functional proteins within sequence space is far, far too generous. Here is corroborating evidence that ‘protein specific’ quantum information/entanglement resides in functional proteins:

    Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies:
    The essence of life? – STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI
    Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign.
    http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf

    A few comments on ‘non-local’ epigenetic information implicated in 3-D spatial organization of Body Plans:
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iNy78O6ZpU8wpFIgkILi85TvhC9mSqzUSE_jzbksoHY

    In fact since quantum entanglement falsified reductive materialism/local realism (Alain Aspect) then finding quantum entanglement/information to be ‘protein specific’ is absolutely shattering to any hope that materialists had in what slim probabilities there were, since a ‘transcendent’ cause must be supplied which is specific to each unique protein structure. Materialism is simply at a complete loss to supply such a ‘non-local’ transcendent cause!

    Though the authors of the ‘cruise control’ paper tried to put a evolution friendly spin on the ‘cruise control’ evidence, for finding a highly advanced ‘Process Control Loop’ at such a base molecular level, before natural selection even has a chance to select for any morphological novelty of a protein, this limit to variability is very much to be expected as a Intelligent Design/Genetic Entropy feature, and is in fact a very constraining thing to the amount of variation we should reasonably expect from any ‘kind’ of species in the first place.

  2. 2

    Interesting references to Wallace, given that Wallace was essentially an ID proponent .

    The work also confirms an idea first floated in an 1858 essay by Alfred Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution. Wallace had suspected that certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner “exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident.” In Wallace’s time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices.

    The research, published in a recent edition of Physical Review Letters, provides corroborating data, Rabitz said, for Wallace’s idea. “What we have found is that certain kinds of biological structures exist that are able to steer the process of evolution toward improved fitness,” said Rabitz, the Charles Phelps Smyth ’16 Professor of Chemistry. “The data just jumps off the page and implies we all have this wonderful piece of machinery inside that’s responding optimally to evolutionary pressure.”

  3. 3

    Correction: the Wallace link should be this . (Can’t seem to figure out how to edit my own comments now.)

  4. OT: William Lane Craig – Oxford Q&A during a lunchtime gathering of students (Unbelievable Christian Radio)
    http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

  5. 5
    englishmaninistanbul

    they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design

    First rule of politics: Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.
    -Sir Humphrey Appleby

  6. Granville Sewell:

    “The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. …”

    “The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design,…”
    ====

    “Cellular Machinery” and stop right there. The question of just how blind pointless indifferent purposeless forces accomplish any of this has never once been satisfactorily answered EVER! But there’s also a WHY ??? Question. Clearly we can look and observe a why, but not according to blind undirected forces that couldn’t give a rat’s rear end one way or another.

    Instead of coming clean on any of this, the arguements always seem to start halfway into the ballgame and we get debates about directed and guided evolution. And that would be fine if they only stop the avoidance of just how those blind undirected purposeless forces at the beginning developed coded informational systems running complex nano-machinery. Until that happens all we are treated to is continued cheating and rigging of experiments with loads of intelligent designed fingerprints of biased goals from any number of Lab Coats and then listening to them proceeding to lie about it later in their analysis or summation of a paper. And they accuse ID of fabricating stories, fables and myths.

    On the point of self correction mechanisms. Yes of course, but not only how, but why would evolution do that. We can intelligently look and observe the why, but evolution is incapable of displaying any conscientious emotion for doing so according it’s very number one on that list of articles of faith held so dear by it’s believers – “No Intelligence Allowed” And how about those kill switch mechanisms ??? Why ??? We observe and know the why as we are intelligent and see the logic in it. But how does something blind and incapable of caring less one way or another even remotely give a doggie doo ??? Hello!

Leave a Reply