Fifteen tweaks that made us human?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 19, 2015

Human evolution, News}

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

Humans are possibly the weirdest species to have ever lived. We have freakishly big brains that allow us to build complicated gadgets, understand abstract concepts and communicate using language. We are also almost hairless with weak jaws, and struggle to give birth. How did such a bizarre creature evolve?

Huh?

1. In a world packed with unusual creatures, what reason have we to assume that humans are “possibly the weirdest species to have ever lived”? Publicly funded broadcasters, like the BBC, can buy this stuff. Whether they could sell it in an open market is another question.

2. “freakishly big brains”? What is the point> of such a claim? Why is it “freaking” to have a big brain when our ears ring with claims about the distressed state of stupider creatures we have—all BBC pensioneers say—displaced?

(Many such creatures are actually too stupid to survive without us)

Why not to believe what they tell you about human evolution

Would Brit readers like to comment? Are you happy to support tax TV in the age of the Internet?

No matter who you are, you gotta see this:

Comments

Mark has no answer, as expected.Mung_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

not querious:
For a pseudo-science, the theory of evolution is predictive, testable and falsifiable,
There isn't any theory of evolution, unguided evolution doesn't make any predictions and it cannot be tested. Obviously you are confused or deluded.Joe_{March 21, 2015
March
03
Mar
21
21
2015
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, almost thinking doesn't count. Never did, never will. What is it that makes us inhuman?Mung_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Fifteen Twinkies That Made Us Human Who could argue?Mung_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Ok BA, whatever you say. I'm just glad you've come to realize your "evolution doesn't have a rigid mathematical basis and therefore Is pseudoscience" argument is BS and have moved on. You've moved on to the even more absurd claim of "evolution is like tea leaf reading," but hey in BA's world that's a sound argument. You can't fix stupid.Curly Howard_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

BA77,
dave, since you were shown to be completely wrong on Chaitin’s current beliefs,,, https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-554951 I will safely ignore your advise.,,, If you had a free will I might of even thought you had a good intention behind the advise :) Oh well, Thanks anyway Darwinbot!
As expected.daveS_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

dave, since you were shown to be completely wrong on Chaitin's current beliefs,,, https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/fifteen-tweaks-that-made-us-human/#comment-554951 I will safely ignore your advise.,,, If you had a free will I might of even thought you had a good intention behind the advise :) Oh well, Thanks anyway Darwinbot!bornagain77_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

as to : For a pseudo-science, the theory of evolution is predictive, testable and falsifiable, all of the things that are required by science. ID Creationism? Not so much. Actually, Darwinism continually makes fundamentally false predictions as to what will be found. False predictions that lead scientists down completely wrong paths. Vestigial organs and Junk DNA for two examples right of the top of my head. Cornelius Hunter, PhD Biophysics, talks about many more failed predictions of Darwinism here:
podcast: Darwin's Predictions With Cornelius Hunter http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2009-11-04T16_03_23-08_00 Darwin's (Failed) Predictions: An Interview with Cornelius Hunter, Part I - 2009: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an021311.html part II http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an_1021321.html
Just yesterday, Casey Luskin wrote an article on another major failed prediction of Darwinism that had led scientists on a wild goose chase for years:
Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent Design: Cell Paper Reports Functions for Synonymous Codons - Casey Luskin - March 18, 2015 Excerpt: evolutionists have long assumed that synonymous codons are functionally equivalent and represent a "junk element" of sorts in the genome. They assumed that one synonymous codon is no better than any other, so which synonymous codon you use doesn't really matter. Not only does this idea stem directly from the assumption of unguided, blind evolution, but it has become the basis for methodologies that attempt to detect natural selection (or the lack thereof) in the genome. When synonymous codons (which don't change amino acid sequence) prevail in frequency over non-synonymous codons (which do change amino acid sequence), that is said to suggest neutral evolution. But when genetic differences that change amino acid sequence (non-synonymous codons) prevail, this has been cited by numerous studies as purportedly showing natural selection acting upon a gene. These are the sorts of studies touted by Darwin advocacy groups like the National Center for Science Education as evidence that we understand how new genes evolve (see here and here).,,, But if synonymous codons can have different functions, then that means that these methods are wrong to begin with. Studies that purport to detect natural selection in the genome find no such thing. Instead, these studies reflect how evolutionary assumptions can mistake important functional elements of the genome for the remnant noise of unguided evolutionary processes. It's another example of how Darwinian thinking leads molecular biology down the wrong path. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/another_success094531.html
As to Darwinism being 'testable', Darwinian explanations have been tested and have been found wanting:
"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 “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.” Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162
As to your claim that Darwinism is falsifiable. That simply is not true. No matter what finding, Darwinists are always able to resort to an assortment of 'rescue devises' to save Darwinism from falsification. For instance, Darwinists claim that a pre-Cambrian rabbit would falsify Darwinism. But, contrary to their belief, such a finding would only invoke another round of 'story telling' with their rescue devise of 'convergent evolution':
Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge 5. Testability What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?,,, The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution. Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor. So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence. - By William A. Dembski http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/Five_Questions_Ev.pdf “The reason evolutionary biologists believe in "40 known independent eye evolutions" isn't because they've reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don't assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian "tree of life." Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent "independent" evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion. This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right -- for Darwinism.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/its_a_shame_rea083441.html
Moreover, whereas Darwinism has no rigid falsification criteria so as to separate it from pseudo-science, ID is easily falsifiable:
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel 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." 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." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_
Of note on falsifiability:
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
Verse and Music:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. Casting Crowns - "Glorious Day (Living He Loved Me)" - Live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqrqPGt11bA
bornagain77_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

BA77,
well daveS, since you find it not the least little bit suspicious that Darwinism is without a rigid mathematical basis, and since you didn’t even try to provide empirical proof for the extraordinary claims that Darwinists make for unguided material processes to produce ANY non-trivial functional information, axioms and codes, and since you hand waved off direct empirical falsification of deterministic claims against free will, then I guess it is time for me to leave the thread, go to bed, and let the unbiased readers decide for themselves who has presented the best case for their position. The last word is all yours.
I never claimed that I could solve the problem of free will, that I could axiomatize "Darwinism", or any of these other things. My position is simply that the Chaitin and Douglas articles don't say what you imply they say, and for that reason, you should take them out of your rotation.daveS_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

"Both fail miserably in their attempted explanations and both are in reality pseudo-sciences:" For a pseudo-science, the theory of evolution is predictive, testable and falsifiable, all of the things that are required by science. ID Creationism? Not so much.not_querius_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

as to: "No it isn’t. Neo-Darwinism makes absolutely no attempt to explain the origin of life." Oh that's right, Darwinism 'merely' tries the be the explanation for the diversification of all biological life, in all its unfathomed complexity, from a 'simple cell'. Materialism, the philosophy which undergirds neo-Darwinian thought, stripped of natural selection, tries to be the explanation for the origin of that 'simple' cell Both fail miserably in their attempted explanations and both are in reality pseudo-sciences: See Stephen Meyer's books: 'Signature in the Cell' and 'Darwin's Doubt'bornagain77_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

"Curly Howard, neo-Darwinism, an abstract idea, is an attempt to explain the origination of all of biological life, something we can see, in all its unfathomed complexity." No it isn't. Neo-Darwinism makes absolutely no attempt to explain the origin of life.not_querius_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Curly Howard, neo-Darwinism, an abstract idea, is an attempt to explain the origination of all of biological life in all its splendid diversity, something we can see, in all its unfathomed complexity. Abstract Darwinian explanations for the origination of that unfathomed complexity in biology are exercises in tea leaf reading (tea leaf reading is a pseudo-science in case you do not know, (I know you said 'you can't fix stupid' but I'm trying anyway! :) ).
Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom - Paul Nelson - September 30, 2014 Excerpt: When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins's "biomorphs" -- see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) -- or flawed analogies such as the "methinks it is like a weasel" search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity. "Research on selection and adaptation," notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, "may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from....This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology" (2003, p. 197). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/talking_back_to_1090141.html EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html "Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html
Dawkins himself stated:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”
Since our mathematics and empirical evidence both tell us that the abstract notion of neo-Darwinism cannot plausibly be the explanation for that overwhelming 'appearance of design' in Biology, then Darwinism is a pseudo-science akin, once again, to tea leaf reading.bornagain77_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

"Despite its controversies it is one of the best things about the UK" Oh come now MF. The BBC is nothing but a propaganda machine. It is certainly not worthy of such praise. Everyone knows the best thing about the UK is the full English breakfast and our lovely countryside ;)humbled_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

1. In a world packed with unusual creatures, what reason have we to assume that humans are “possibly the weirdest species to have ever lived”? Publicly funded broadcasters, like the BBC, can buy this stuff. Whether they could sell it in an open market is another question.
Actually any broadcaster can buy this stuff – often they buy it from the BBC which has a fantastic track record of selling programming (£1.7 billion last year) including top science broadcasting to other countries.
2. “freakishly big brains”? What is the point> of such a claim? Why is it “freaking” to have a big brain when our ears ring with claims about the distressed state of stupider creatures we have—all BBC pensioneers say—displaced?
Freakish means strikingly unusual – don’t you think human brains are unusually large?
(Many such creatures are actually too stupid to survive without us)
Many, many creatures are dependent on others to survive – including us.
Would Brit readers like to comment? Are you happy to support tax TV in the age of the Internet?
Extremely happy. Despite its controversies it is one of the best things about the UK. If you haven’t lived in a country with a non-commercial broadcasting and Internet service which is not government controlled then you may not appreciate its value. One of the interesting things about having a non-commercial service is that it drives up the standard of the commercial rivals.Mark Frank_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

"We are also almost hairless" Speak for yourself ;)humbled_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

BA, first you tell me biology has a rigid mathematical foundation, then you tell me we haven't figured it all out. Well which is it? Let me tell you. We haven't figured out even close to a significant fraction of it. So this means the study of biology has been without a "rigid mathematical foundation" for its entire history and this will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Now I'll answer my original question for you. This does not mean that biology is a pseudoscience, and neither is evolutionary biology. I'm sure this will all go in one ear and out the other though, and you will be copy/pasting the same BS for years to come. Oh well. You can't fix stupid. Good day.Curly Howard_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

You are wrong. Biology does have a rigid mathematical basis. Darwinism does not. Therefore, among many other considerations, Darwinism is a pseudo-science and biology is not. Just because the mathematics at the foundation of biology is so intricate that we have not figured it all out (and in all likelihood never will) does not mean that we do not know that biology is indeed 'information theoretic' in its basis.
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the idea of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark): "Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010
On the other hand, Darwinism gives no hint that a rigid mathematical basis will ever be found for it:
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf
In fact, besides having no discernible mathematical basis, nor even providing any real hope that a mathematical basis will be found, our mathematics continually tells us that Darwinian evolution is extremely unlikely:
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford
bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

0 for 2 BA. It's not what I "believe," it's a fact: the vast majority of biology does not have a rigid mathematical foundation. So one last time, I'll try, does this make biology a pseudoscience?Curly Howard_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

well daveS, since you find it not the least little bit suspicious that Darwinism is without a rigid mathematical basis, and since you didn't even try to provide empirical proof for the extraordinary claims that Darwinists make for unguided material processes to produce ANY non-trivial functional information, axioms and codes, and since you hand waved off direct empirical falsification of deterministic claims against free will, then I guess it is time for me to leave the thread, go to bed, and let the unbiased readers decide for themselves who has presented the best case for their position. The last word is all yours.bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

I'd like to point out News' near pathological hatred of a broadcaster with a string of science credentials that kind of outshine UD a bit; you know 'Expelled' and ooh, that's it. Life on Earth. The Life of Plants. The Life of Mammals. Panorama (science specials). The Human Body. (censored in the US I believe because a breast and penis were shown to be important in some obscure way to reproductive biology) Many, many other one offs. Makes Discovery Channel look underevolved. There was also the inspired late sixties decision to make David Attenborough head of all science production. The BBC Denyse, may indeed like to see distressed pensioners, but I doubt it. Perhaps Fox News would distress pensioners more when their outrageous charges for such a shoddy product are billed out. Next of course, being a private entity, they send out the debt collectors. News, unfortunately for you, the Beeb remains a much loved public institution, right up there with the publicly funded NHS. Heaven preserve us from any society you prefer. Strict religious indoctrination with tithing mayhap?rvb8_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

as to: "Most of biology doesn’t have a “rigid mathematical foundation,” does that mean biology is pseudoscience?" Contrary to what you believe, all of life/biology is based on, i.e. has its 'foundation' based on, highly intricate mathematical information. In fact, the mathematics and overlapping coding found at the basis of all biological life on earth far outclasses anything man has ever devised. For instance, I found this paper today:
Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain - Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija - 2006 Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural - amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy - classical and quantum state, and (3) information - classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system. http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491
Darwinism seeks to explain the origination of that highly intricate, overlapping, and yes mathematical, information by unguided material processes. In other words, Darwinism seeks to explain the wondrous by appeal to the absurd. Such inherent absurdity in Darwinian explanations makes Darwinism a pseudo-science by definition.bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, do you not find it the least bit strange that a preeminent mathematician failed to find a mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution worked? In fact he termed it ‘a scandal’ that Darwinism has no mathematical proof!
Um, not at all. I doubt that "Darwinism" is something you can mathematically prove. After all, the articles you linked to talked about the surprising limitations of mathematics. Douglas discusses the intractability of a particular 3-body problem, which is trivial compared to modeling biological systems. Does that mean we chuck all of physics?
As to your quip on the ‘speculative’ nature of free will, you do know that if you deny that you have free will then you forfeit any right you have to argue rationally don’t you?
To clarify, I was referring to the author's application of Chaitin's work to free will, not free will itself. But I wasn't aware that the problem of free will had been solved already. lol There's probably a reason it has been around for thousands of years. More to the point, the papers you linked to said nothing about "functional information". I'm still not seeing any relevance to ID.daveS_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Classic BA two-step. You didn't answer my question: Most of biology doesn't have a "rigid mathematical foundation," does that mean biology is pseudoscience?Curly Howard_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

actually biology, and the intricate mathematics being found within biology, is far easier to decipher, and understand, from the Intelligent Design perspective than it is from the Darwinian perspective
How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3
bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

BA, you do realize that there is no "rigid mathematical foundation" for much of biology, right? So does that make biology pseudoscience?Curly Howard_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

daveS, do you not find it the least bit strange that a preeminent mathematician failed to find a mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution worked? In fact he termed it 'a scandal' that Darwinism has no mathematical proof! And since Darwinism has no known mathematical proof, how can Darwinism even be considered a realistic science in the first place as all our other best theories of science are?
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Without a rigid mathematical foundation, what separates Darwinism from pseudo-science dave? If you say empirical evidence separates neo-Darwinism from pseudo-science, then we are back to square one with you having to provide empirical evidence that unguided material processes can produce functional information, axioms, and codes! Do you have that empirical evidence? I've looked. Many more people than I have looked. Nobody can seem to find any evidence of unguided material processes generating functional information, axioms or codes. Moreover, since I found the Douglas paper from the header of Robert Marks evoinfo website a few years ago, I'm VERY comfortable with Douglas's statements on conservation of information and free will. As to your quip on the 'speculative' nature of free will, you do know that if you deny that you have free will then you forfeit any right you have to argue rationally don't you?
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
And dave, you also do know that 'speculative' free will is integral in quantum mechanics don't you? In other words, Its not as if free will is without solid empirical support! (as neo-Darwinism lacks solid empirical support I might add!) In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is directly falsified by the fact that present conscious choices are, in fact, effecting past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition! supplemental note:
Free will and nonlocality at detection: Basic principles of quantum physics – Antoine Suarez – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMrrmlTXl4
bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

BA77, Frankly, even I would be skeptical of a book entitled Proving Darwin, especially one written by a non-biologist. But there's no doubt he's a mathematical giant. I hate to keep repeating myself, but having read the Douglas article, I'm not sure what support it provides to ID. Let's be clear that the author is talking about Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity and not "functional information". And the stuff on free will is definitely ... speculative.daveS_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

dave at 11 as to:
"I just read the Chaitin article from Scientific American, but didn’t find anything relating to your argument. If you disagree, please cite specific quotes from it."
No more quotes from the article to cite,,,. The quote I cited is pretty much the exact quote I wanted to prove the point. i.e. That Chaitin had made Godel's incompleteness 'more concrete' just as he said he had done in the video I referenced. I guess, I could add the two preceding sentences in the article to give the 'more concrete' emphasis more context:
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf
as to
"it would seem that the author of Proving Darwin doesn’t see things quite the way you do."
Actually, since Chaitin had written that book, Proving Darwin, in 2013, he has had, due to I believe a conversation he had with Robert Marks, a change of heart: Chaitin is quoted, by Marks, at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism's lack of a mathematical proof – Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting to him that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods that he thought it had delivered (apparently when he had written his book).
On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II - 2014 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600
Here is the paper that Marks confronted Chaitin with that caused him to have a change of heart about his supposed mathematical proof for Darwinism:
Active Information in Metabiology - Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II - 2013 Excerpt: Introduction: Chaitin’s description of metabiology [3] is casual, clear, compelling, and mind-bending. Yet in the end, although the mathematics is beautiful, our analysis shows that the metabiology model parallels other attempts to illustrate undirected Darwinian evolution using computer models [10–13]. All of these models depend on the principle of conservation of information [14–21], and all have been shown to incorporate knowledge about the search derived from their designers; this knowledge is measurable as active information [14,22–25]. Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 podcast: "Dr. Robert Marks: Active Information in Metabiology" - May 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-28T16_06_40-07_00 Dr. Robert Marks: Active Information in Metabiology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSJg0IZtfI
Of related note: Here is what Gregory Chaitin himself said, in 2011, about the limits of the computer program he was trying to develop to prove that Darwinian evolution was mathematically feasible:
At last, a Darwinist mathematician tells the truth about evolution - VJT - November 2011 Excerpt: In Chaitin’s own words, “You’re allowed to ask God or someone to give you the answer to some question where you can’t compute the answer, and the oracle will immediately give you the answer, and you go on ahead.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-last-a-darwinist-mathematician-tells-the-truth-about-evolution/
You just can't make stuff like that up! :) The preceding was a bit funny for me. Here we have a very intelligent man, Chaitin, who had personally 'suggested' that '"an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms", who, in spite of that, was still trying to prove that a variation of the 'simplistic' Darwinian 'hill climbing algorithm' could solve for a virtually unlimited set of intricate algorithms:
In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin - the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation - as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems. Watson R.A. - 2006 - Compositional Evolution - MIT Press - Pg. 272 To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
Personally, to put it mildly, I thought it was a severe disconnect in logic, on Chaitin's part, to personally know the severe limits for computers on the one hand, and then on the other hand try to prove that the most simplistic of computer algorithms could solve for countless thousands of intricate algorithms and thus prove neo-Darwinian evolution true. As Chaitin said himself in the Turing video I cited, it was "too clever by half",,, But alas, Darwinian Evolution has made many more than just one really intelligent person do, and say, very irrational things!bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

What are the tweaks that make us inhuman, and how many are there? Meanwhile at the future of UD: Verify that you are not inhuman by answering the question below.Mung_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply