Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Andy McIntosh’s Peer-Reviewed ID Paper–Note the Editor’s Note!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Prof. Andy McIntoshProfessor Andy McIntosh, an ID proponent in the UK, has a peer-reviewed paper on the thermodynamic barriers to Darwinian evolution:

A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy—Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 4(4) (2009): 351-385

The Editor appends the following note:

Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper.  It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves.  The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic.  Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor’.

Here is the abstract: 

Abstract: This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and non-spontaneous raised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs. The functional machinery of biological systems such as DNA, RNA and proteins requires that precise, non-spontaneous raised free energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a far from equilibrium state. Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium. The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not defined by the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machinery to be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it. 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.

Comments
Petruska, the entire materialistic framework you insist on using is grossly inadequate to explain origins.
I have worked very hard to avoid discussing origins -- either the origin of existence or the origin of life. Going further, I have tried to limit the scope of my posting to the post Cambrian. This has been difficult, and I have lapsed.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Please stop the video at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and then please note the centrality of the Earth’s position in the universe.
I think you must have missed the part of the lecture where they pointed out that any point in the universe could look out an think itself the central point. But I'm why this would matter anyway in a multiverse. Anything happening in our universe, including its birth and death would be trivial.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Petruska, the entire materialistic framework you insist on using is grossly inadequate to explain origins. But alas now I'm repeating myself ad nauseum and you are no closer to being reasonable than you were several days ago. thus I will move on to other more fruitful areas.bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Petruska I hate to be the one to break the news to you but you ain’t interested in anything that might point to non-material causes, such as intelligence...
I can't think of anything in the history of science that supported a non-material cause. I mentioned Newton's dalliance with divine corrections of planetary motions. In general, when science encounters an inadequacy in a theory, it goes to work refining methodology and analysis.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Petruska the video is visualbornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Here is Craig's review of Vilenkin: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7289bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Please watch this video:
I have already mentioned having a hesring problem. Trying to follow complex oral arguments, particularly in internet videos, just hasn't been available to me. When I watch movies and TV, I often turn captions on. My wonderful DVD player has an option to compress the dialog channel.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Petruska I hate to be the one to break the news to you but you ain't interested in anything that might point to non-material causes, such as intelligence, which is completely funny since purely material processes have never been shown to produce any information whatsoever and here you are on this blog producing information in abundance. Isn't it ironic? Alanis Morissette - Ironic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPYbornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Petruska, Please read the Vilenken quote from “Many World’s In One” carefully and then compare it to your materialistic meta-universe assumption, Shake well, let it sink in.
Reading about Vilenkin, it strikes me that he posits an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of earths. In such and existence, arguments about probability make no sense. Everything happens somewhere. Are you sure you intended for me to look at Vilenkin and not at someone else?Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Petruska though I have other issues with the quote you cite, which is taken out of context (please read William Lane Craig's review of Vilenkin's "Many World's In One" for full context) let's concentrate on this last sentence of your quote: "our descent from the center of the world is now complete.” Please watch this video: The Known Universe by AMNH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U Please stop the video at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and then please note the centrality of the Earth's position in the universe. If we are now completely removed from any cosmic significance , as the quote you cite directly implies, why in the blue blazes are we in such a privileged position of centrality from our unique perspective of observation in the universe? "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet But hey Petruska I would of been cool with not being central in the universe because,,, I'm Not Cool - Scott Krippayne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7XR6t8YshQbornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
you are imposing your belief instead of looking for a casually adequate solution within science.
I have no interest in first causes. At least no interest in trying to nail down a first cause. I humbly accept my limitations on that one. Within the observable frame of existence, I am interested in regular phenomena and lawful behavior.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Petruska, that was the concluding statement of ENCODE!!!!
Yes, and I believe I already posted a link to an analysis. Such things get sorted out over time. I'm patient. Meanwhile, the consensus remains that most junk is junk.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Petruska, Please read the Vilenken quote from “Many World’s In One” carefully and then compare it to your materialistic meta-universe assumption, Shake well, let it sink in.
I haven't read the book, but he seems to be one of the people I had in mind:
Cosmologists ask many difficult questions and often come up with strange answers. In this engagingly written but difficult book, Vilenkin, a Tufts University physicist, does exactly this, discussing the creation of the universe, its likely demise and the growing belief among cosmologists that there are an infinite number of universes. Vilenkin does an impressive job of presenting the background information necessary for lay readers to understand the ideas behind the big bang and related phenomena. Having set the stage, the author then delves into cutting-edge ideas, many of his own devising. He argues persuasively that, thanks to repulsive gravity, the universe is likely to expand forever. He goes on to posit that our universe is but one of an infinite series, many of them populated by our "clones." Vilenkin is well aware of the implications of this assertion: "countless identical civilizations [to ours] are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the world is now complete."
My statement was that our universe could be one of many, and that the big bang was not considered the beginning of existence.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Petruska, that was the concluding statement of ENCODE!!!!bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Petruska, the only known entity that has the "scientific" sufficiency to cause the origination of space-time matter-energy in the big bang is transcendent information. Transcendent Information is now shown to be its own unique, and independent, entity from quantum entanglement, and teleportation experiments, especially with the refutation of the hidden variable argument. i.e. It is the only entity that is shown to be "real" and is also shown to be completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy. To appeal to any material entity, such as you have with the meta-universe has left the bounds of science. i.e. you are imposing your belief instead of looking for a casually adequate solution within science.bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
“we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons.
If that means what I think it means -- that functional sequences in DNA are not conserved or subject to selection, then I will bet the conclusion is in error. Something got overlooked. But it's a short snippet. Perhaps I don't read it as the authors intended.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
I don't have the math to evaluate competing cosmologies. I tend to trust physicists who describe possible things consistent with current evidence, but who stop short of pronouncing one of them to be certain. I have a hearing problem and can't really get much information from videos. I tend to avoid them.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Petrushka, paradoxically, in this science & knowledge age, it is very difficult to change anybody's mind. As for somebody today being unconvinced by the "argument from probability" (your post 77), you are right, and the problem is that the probability argument has now been shifted to genetics and thus it becomes incomprehensible to most non-experts and ordinary people who have no clue about specialized mathematics, biology and genetics related intricacies. (Plus you require knowledgeable mathematically and philosophically trained scientists, biologists and geneticists to meaningfully address the issue.) To answer you shortly — it is not so much that that winners are rigging the game, but that the game itself is being rigged for them by some invisible intelligent mind. You think that "junk DNA is plain junk" (your post 83), and, really, who am I to argue with such an argument ?! As the great thinker Gautama Buddha put it — "The mind is everything. What you think you become." Or, to use another description: "A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell at all. (Hanwell was a lunatic asylum near London, England.) In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life." http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/ortho14.txt All, I can say, I feel sorry for you and for all the odd people who think like you do.rockyr
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Petruska, Please read the Vilenken quote from "Many World's In One" carefully and then compare it to your materialistic meta-universe assumption, Shake well, let it sink in. You finally cite a site (Moran's) but clinging to his coattails you will be just as wrong and worse yet you will be a obstacle to scientific progress: On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. - Richard Sternberg Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679 Concluding statement of the ENCODE study: "we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more 'neutral' view of many of the functions conferred by the genome." http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf No Such Thing As 'Junk RNA,' Say Researchers - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Tiny strands of RNA previously dismissed as cellular junk are actually very stable molecules that may play significant roles in cellular processes, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091013105809.htm Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason (Part II) - April 2010 Excerpt: In fact the term ‘junk DNA’ is now seen by many an expert as somewhat of a misnomer since much of what was originally categorized as such has turned out to be pivotal for DNA stability and the regulation of gene expression. In his book Nature’s Probability And Probability’s Nature author Donald Johnson has done us all a service by bringing these points to the fore. He further notes that since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures. That is, if the Darwinian account of life is to be believed. “It would make sense” Johnson writes “that those useless nucleotides would be removed from the genome long before they had a chance to form something with a selective advantage….there would be no advantage in directing energy to useless structures”. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/arriving-at-intelligence-through-the-corridors-of-reason-part-ii/ Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. http://www.cosbi.eu/index.php/component/content/article/171 Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams: Excerpt: DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards; and the ‘junk’ is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution...All the vast amount of meta-information in the human genome only has meaning when applied to the problem of using the human genome to make, maintain and reproduce human beings. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf etc..etc..etc..bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
If you have a clue regarding big bang cosmology, why would you need elaboration when I say the Big Bang is no longer regarded as a necessarily unique event? Obviously physics at this level is speculation, but so is philosophy and theology. My point would be that there are mathematically consistent descriptions of a meta-universe in which big bangs are neither unique nor rare. It might even be possible to detect other universes. Fun stuff.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
I will stand by the claim that the overwhelming percentage of junk DNA is just junk. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-gene-post-encode.htmlPetrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Petruska since I do have a little clue in this area please do elaborate:bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
I said beginning of existence, not beginning of our universe.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Petruska you state: "At the moment the Big Bang has no implications at all for the beginning of existence. It has no implications for such philosophical or theological concepts as first cause. Many, if not most, physicists no longer regard it as the first event in physical existence." First you deny it has implications, which is clearly ludicrous, then even though it has no implications in your mind (a clear case of denialism) you state that "most" physicist no longer regard it as the first event of physical existence. I sure wish you would clue me in to where you get all this "evidence" because I sure can't find it on google: What I do find though is this: The Creation Of The Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument)- Lee Strobel - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993987/ Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185 Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 It is also very interesting to note that among all the "holy" books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later "holy" books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) Then you had the audacity to say that Junk DNA prediction of materialists was only off by a "percent or two" (thanks for the laugh): Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm Evolutionists were notoriously wrong for predicting that the +95% of the genome which did not directly code for proteins was junk but it is instead found that: Nature Reports Discovery of “Second Genetic Code” But Misses Intelligent Design Implications - May 2010 Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that "95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases." ,,,, the complexity of this "splicing code" is mind-boggling:,,, A summary of this article also titled “Breaking the Second Genetic Code” in the print edition of Nature summarized this research thusly: “At face value, it all sounds simple: DNA makes RNA, which then makes protein. But the reality is much more complex.,,, So what we’re finding in biology are: # “beautiful” genetic codes that use a biochemical language; # Deeper layers of codes within codes showing an “expanding realm of complexity”; # Information processing systems that are far more complex than previously thought (and we already knew they were complex), including “the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/nature_reports_discovery_of_se.html yeah Petruska what is one percent or 2 percent or 90 percent difference in being wrong amongst friends. You right I'm probably just being picky over the exact numbers here: Matthew 10:31 "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." You then state: "The vast majority of inspired ideas go nowhere in the face of data." Then why in the world does the "inspired" idea of neo-Darwinism refuse to heed the crushing weight of scientific evidence found against it? As Dr. Hunter says of Darwinism, religion drives science and it matters. Switchfoot - Dare You To Move http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOTcr9wKC-obornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Your approach to science is called methodological naturalism i.e. materialism, and this approach has a track record of consistently failed predictions that have severely hampered science (i.e. Rejection of Big Bang cosmology for nearly half a century and Junk DNA for two glaring failures)
I've just said I don't like posting just to disagree, but here I am posting to disagree. There is no evidence or data that either supports or conflicts with big bang cosmology except that derived from observation and experiment. At the moment the Big Bang has no implications at all for the beginning of existence. It has no implications for such philosophical or theological concepts as first cause. Many, if not most, physicists no longer regard it as the first event in physical existence. Junk DNA is still junk, even if a percent or two of what was formerly regarded as junk has some function. But the discovery that some former junk has function was made by mainstream biologists. As for what inhibits or enables good science, hunches and intuition may inspire research, but they have nothing to do with outcomes of research. The vast majority of inspired ideas go nowhere in the face of data.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Petruska you state: "At no point in the history of gravity, since Galileo, has there been any progress made by imputing demiurges to explain inconsistencies in data. But even Newton was tempted in this direction, so intelligence and competence are no barrier to this kind of thinking. It has a powerful hold on the human imagination." Your approach to science is called methodological naturalism i.e. materialism, and this approach has a track record of consistently failed predictions that have severely hampered science (i.e. Rejection of Big Bang cosmology for nearly half a century and Junk DNA for two glaring failures) Materialism compared to Theism within the scientific method: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 You mention Gravity as if Gravity is understood to a purely material cause yet once again you are wrong in your assumption: REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE The abstract of the September 2006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.” http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Decadal_Survey-Dark_Energy_Task_Force_report.pdf The Mathematical Anomaly Of Dark Matter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133609 Dark matter halo Excerpt: The dark matter halo is the single largest part of the Milky Way Galaxy as it covers the space between 100,000 light-years to 300,000 light-years from the galactic center. It is also the most mysterious part of the Galaxy. It is now believed that about 95% of the Galaxy is composed of dark matter, a type of matter that does not seem to interact with the rest of the Galaxy's matter and energy in any way except through gravity. The dark matter halo is the location of nearly all of the Milky Way Galaxy's dark matter, which is more than ten times as much mass as all of the visible stars, gas, and dust in the rest of the Galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo Table 2.1 Inventory of All the Stuff That Makes Up the Universe (Visible vs. Invisible) Dark Energy 72.1% Exotic Dark Matter 23.3% Ordinary Dark Matter 4.35% Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) 0.27% Planets 0.0001% Invisible portion - Universe 99.73% Visible portion - Universe .27% of note: The inventory of the universe is updated to the second and third releases of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe's (WMAP) results in 2006 & 2008; (Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Hugh Ross; pg. 37) Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Myself I find that Newton's comment in Principia, arguably one of the greatest if not the greatest work of science to ever be printed, to still ring loud and true: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” ??????????? [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider his greatest science masterpiece "Principia" And once again I find the fact that the evidence is in fact overwhelming for a Creator to be a source of great joy that I am extremely thankful for. As well I find the promise of eternal life that this Creator has bestowed on us through Christ to be true as well. Kutless: Promise of a Lifetime - Live http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=9a0f47fa6c2b35a1a968bornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
BA77: I may fail to respond to a post for several reasons. Most likely, I simply have nothing to say. I see no reason to post simply to say I disagree. There's also the problem that I simply don't have time to formulate responses to hundreds of arguments. I have to pick those for which I have the strongest response. At some point we all drop out of threads. They don't go on forever. My goal is simply to post my best arguments and see what becomes of them. I prefer it when everyone brings their best game to the table.Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Petruska, since the entire universe "just fell out of the sky" to use your own words, (a question I asked you which you refused to touch by the way) then it is perfectly acceptable scientifically, to explain the sudden appearance of fossils in the fossil record to them "just falling out of the sky". The Cambrian Explosion - Back To A Miracle! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4112218 Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 "The Cambrian Explosion was so short that it is below the resolution of the fossil record. It could have happened overnight. So we don't know the duration of the Cambrian Explosion. We just know that it was very, very, fast." Jonathan Wells - Darwin's Dilemma Quote you mention the red blood cells of Tibetans as a beneficial mutation (out of over 100,000 cataloged detrimental mutations) so let's look closer at this supposed "beneficial" mutation of yours: Of Note: The new "beneficial mutations" found in Tibetans that allow them to survive in extremely high altitudes, with less oxygen, is actually found to result in a limit on the red cell blood count for Tibetans: Tibetans Developed Genes to Help Them Adapt to Life at High Elevations - May 2010 Excerpt: "What's unique about Tibetans is they don't develop high red blood cells counts," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143453.htm Yet,, Extremely fit individuals may have higher values—significantly more red cells in their bodies and significantly more oxygen-carrying capacity—but still maintain normal hematocrit values. http://wiki.medpedia.com/Red_Blood_Cells ,,,Thus the authors of the Tibetan study are completely incorrect to imply that all high red blood cell counts found in humans are detrimental,,, Thus this clearly is a loss of overall functional information, and fitness, for Tibetans since Tibetans will now be found to have less of a capacity to work, due to their now restricted oxygen metabolism, than will other "extremely fit" humans in a "normal oxygen" environment. i.e. they gained a benefit by burning a molecular bridge as Dr. Behe would say: Want to name lactase persistance as an example Petruska? Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a "truly" beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.biobase-international.com/pages/index.php?id=hgmddatabase I really question their use of the word "celebrating". (Of Note: The number for Mendelian Genetic Disorders is quoted to be over 6000 by geneticist John Sanford in 2010) "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. (this 3500 figure is cited from the late 1980's) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp Myself, I find humans to be fearfully and wonderfully made: Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713 And I am thankful that we are fearfully and wonderfully made! Natalie Merchant-Kind And Generous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdG618TMc5Ebornagain77
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Petrushka: I appreciate your #76, and have no reason to question your personal beliefs about science. I believe in science too, and I do believe it is supporting and will support the design scenario. I don't consider the concept of design input as "non natural" and I am sure that a lot of details about how and when, and perhaps even with what modalities and purposes the input of design took place will be revealed by scientific investigation, in time, and if the correct interpretation paradigm (design) is allowed its due place in scientific reasoning. I hope I have contributed to clarify at least some aspects of the probability argument, even if you are not impressed by it. On the contrary, I consider it supremely important. Your questions have anyway given me the chance to express in detail some points which are very dear to my approach to ID. I thank you for that.gpuccio
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/05/14/tibetans-have-unique-genes-to-survive-on-heights-13218/ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1189406
Tibetans have lived at very high altitudes for thousands of years, and they have a distinctive suite of physiological traits that enable them to tolerate environmental hypoxia. These phenotypes are clearly the result of adaptation to this environment, but their genetic basis remains unknown. We report genome-wide scans that reveal positive selection in several regions that contain genes whose products are likely involved in high-altitude adaptation. Positively selected haplotypes of EGLN1 and PPARA were significantly associated with the decreased hemoglobin phenotype that is unique to this highland population. Identification of these genes provides support for previously hypothesized mechanisms of high-altitude adaptation and illuminates the complexity of hypoxia response pathways in humans.
Petrushka
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply