Evolutionist: Let’s Admit it, We Don’t Fully Understand How Evolution Works

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 27, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. Unfortunately Ball fails to take his own advice and ends up doing precisely what he advises other evolutionists against—whitewashing the science. Read more

Comments

In that same article by Aaronson, Phil, he goes on to say: 'Even if we don't know all the details, is there necessarily some fact-of-the-matter about what happened in history, about which trajectory the world followed to reach its present state? Or does the past only "exist" insofar as it's reflected in memories and records in the present? The latter view is certainly the more natural one in quantum mechanics. But as John Bell pointed out, if we take it seriously, then it would seem difficult to do science! But as John Bell pointed out, if we take it seriously, then it would seem difficult to do science! For what could it mean to make a prediction if there's no logical connection between past and future states.' Note the penultimate sentence: 'But as John Bell pointed out, if we take it seriously, then it would seem difficult to do science!' In effect, he's iterating the joke about someone asking what's the best way to get to Tresrockdanson, and being told, 'Well, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here!' Only this bloke, a materialist, is serious. Atheism leads down some very curious highways and byways, when it finds truth, an obstacle that fer sure. What he should say is, well, the metaphysics of QM is undeniably the ultimate truth here, but we can still use our geology, paleontology, etc, to good effect. But of course, the metaphysics comes far too close to allowing Luwontin's God to get his foot in the door.Axel_{May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

And re my #102, I believe it was David Be Gurion, who said, 'Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles is not a realist'; not Chaim Weizmann.Axel_{May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Re your #103, Phil, as you're wont to say over there: 'You got that right, buddie!'Axel_{May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Quote: “It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians’ sense of beauty.” - Alexander Vilenkin http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3754268bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Yes indeed, the argument from beauty is compelling. Here's one formulation that I find persuasive: The Argument from Beauty. :PChance Ratcliff_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Romeo and Juliet - Act II. Scene II.,,, Juliet. ’Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself though, not a Montague. What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O! be some other name: What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name; And for that name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself. Romeo. I take thee at thy word. Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptiz’d; Henceforth I never will be Romeo. http://www.bartleby.com/70/3822.htmlbornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Axel: The argument from beauty needs no words... http://www.boredpanda.com/amazing-places/bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

I expect it was his having learnt about QM that prompted Chaim Weizmann to say that anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist.Axel_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

I wonder when Aaronson gave that lecture, because I made that same point, last week, about the dolts scoffing at the YE Creationists, when the precedence of mind over matter renders the whole question of the age of the earth, to put it at its most kindly, academic.Axel_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Your #91, Phil. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” Bingo! I've just been on about their refusal to take on board the implications of QM on another thread.Axel_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

kf, Never really catering to the YEC position myself, I don't see Aaronson's statement that way. I see it as another amazing confirmation of a major Theistic premise.bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

BA: I am simply saying that there is a twofer here. Gkairosfocus_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Of related note, even though QM takes precedence over the space-time of General relativity as to being a more complete description of reality,,,
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
,,,It seems that most Atheists, at least the ones I've interacted with, will not even accept the overwhelming evidence which is coming from looking at space-time itself:
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - paper delivered at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party (Characterized as 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
Music and verse:
Kari Jobe - Revelation Song - Passion 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE REVELATION 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

kf, perhaps it is good to go thru a bit of a review. Here Dr. Zeilinger, arguably the best experimentalist in quantum physics today, goes over the double slit experiment with Morgan Freeman:
Quantum Mechanics (QM) - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything really physical? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
In the preceding video Dr. Zeilinger states:
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passed through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable."
Of course, all this 'quantum weirdness' is revealed to us by physicists trying to explain why the wave collapses in the double slit experiment simply by us simply observing it. Materialist, of course, are at a complete loss to explain why conscious observation should have any effect at all on material reality. Whereas the Theist is quite comfortable with consciousness having a central role in the experiment. But rather than the mainstream atheists/materialists accepting falsification for their worldview from the double slit experiment, they invented the unverifiable many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to try to 'explain it away'. A view of reality that drives atheistic naturalism even further into epistemological failure than it already was (Boltzmann's Brain; Plantinga's EAAN). To make it even worse for materialists, further advances in the experimental techniques of Quantum Mechanics, experimentation which, by the way, could care less if the atheist is able to maintain his a priori worldview or not, have only dramatically underscored this 'weirdness' that is highlighted by the double slit experiment:
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: So Zeilinger’s group rederived Leggett’s theory for a finite number of measurements. There were certain directions the polarization would more likely face in quantum mechanics. This test was more stringent. In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/
As well, as with any robust theory of science, there are several different ways consciousness is confirmed to be 'central' to reality by quantum mechanics:
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
There are other lines of evidence for QM omitted for the sake of brevity. But to the main point, besides all this evidence being completely contrary the atheist's/materialist's starting presuppositions, it is interesting to note just how tightly all this evidence fits into the Theist's starting presuppositions. For prime example: The argument from motion is known as Aquinas’ First way. (Of note, St Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 7 March 1274.)
Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html
Or put more simply:
"The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
As well, not only is motion dependent on a "Prime Act", i.e. on a ‘first mover’, but quantum non locality also provides empirical confirmation for the ancient philosophical argument for ‘being’, for ‘existence’ itself!
Aquinas' Third way - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030hvnX5a4 God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjuqBxg_5mA
kf, to me, as a Theist, finding QM to fit hand in glove to what was postulated centuries before is, of course, something to be very excited about. But even as a unbiased person, who believes in the objectivity of science to reveal truth to us about reality, I can only wonder as to what sinister motive would drive a atheist, who claims to believe in 'rationality', to fight so hard against what is so obvious from our science?bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

BA: I think there is a level two game there, of setting up a strawman caricature meant to stereotype and scapegoat; though I think that the good prof in question is echoing "conventional wisdom." I have been particularly aware of it in light of recent attempts to project such here at UD. KFkairosfocus_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

kf, Now while Dr. Aaronson's caricature of the YEC position is strawmanish in its formulation, the main point he is drawing out from quantum mechanics is a point that completely crushes the materialistic/atheistic conception of nature. To take offense that a, IMHO, scientifically indefensible position of YEC is improperly represented while missing the main fact that he crushes the atheistic/materialistic position in his very next statement is to 'miss the forest for the trees'!bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

kf, huh?bornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

BA: The clip seems to be a strawman set up for ridicule. Is that what all or most Creationists, Old or Young Earth, think? KFkairosfocus_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.htmlbornagain77_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

@ Joealtie #30
Except for the fact that Genesis states that god created everything at once, but for some reason new stars are being born?
Here is an answer from creation.com on this issue: Given the right special conditions, it may be possible for a cloud of hydrogen to become a star — if it is first compressed to the right density so that the force of gravity is more powerful than the tendency for it to disperse. It will then irresistibly collapse, and the resultant heating of its interior should eventually ignite the process of thermonuclear fusion thought to power stars. The catch is that the conditions required to compress the gas to that point seem to require the shock waves from the explosion of a previously existing star. Some creationist astronomers have been thinking for a while that God may have set the first stars alight in a similar fashion, that is, by rapidly and supernaturally gathering together/compressing material made on the first day of creation. We see many of these today in various stages of 'star death', including some which explode. If the shock waves from some of these explosions were to ignite a few more such thermonuclear fires by gas compression, this would cause no discomfort to straightforward Genesis creation. However, such rare events would be insufficient to replace those stars dying off. Some have suggested that these appearances are caused by pre-existing stars being progressively revealed as 'light pressure' blows away the surrounding material. Actually, astronomers who believe these are stars forming have said that such 'photo-evaporation' has inhibited their growth, implying that these objects may never be able to develop into normal mature stars, anyway. Even if it could be shown for certain that stars really were forming in this nebula, it should be obvious that a mechanism which needs to first have a star in order to form more stars is not sufficient to explain how stars came to be.tjguy_{May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

... teachers of unruly, disaffected adolescents in a reformatory school (particularly unruly with regard to the rules of logic).Axel_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

The more I read on her, the more evident it becomes to me that UDers are trying to deal with people with the mentality of juvenile delinquents, as if they were, not just adults, but scientists and philosophers. It's a kind of mad-house.Axel_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Donald, agreed, i've noticed that as well. The audacity people have had in their attitude toward Behe is amazing. He's treated like this long discredited joke by those in the NDE camp, and yet when you try to find all this supposed evidence that refutes him, YOU CAN'T FIND IT! I've tried. What you will find is people like Ken Miller saying why they think he's wrong, and then finding those refutations cited everywhere... but what gets conveniently swept under the rug are Behe's responses to those refutations. All the ones i've read pretty much dismantle the refutation. And after that, complete silence. It's as if the NDE camp reads the refutation, says "good enough for me!", then puts their hands over their ears and refuses to listen anymore.cheshire_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

An interesting few days, to be sure. We've had three people (franklin, joealtle, CharlieD) come in with guns blazing and pounding the table about all the alleged evidence for things like abiogenesis, while, unfortunately, demonstrating very little understanding about the details of abiogenesis and fundamental principles like information and the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.Eric Anderson_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore - April 30, 2013 Excerpt: Using the same amount of space, DNA can store 140,000 times more data than iron (III) oxide molecules, which stores information on computer hard drives. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.htmlbornagain77_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Yes, it is nice to see an evolutionist admit to something we don't understand. But that doesn't stop the Darwinian story telling. I recall back in 1996-97 right after Dr. Michael Behe first published Darwin's Black Box that his claim that there were no peer reviewed research studies in any of the relevant science journals providing the Darwinian details to explain any of the irreducibly complex biological systems he described in the book set up a firestorm of protest in Darwinian circles. Long lists of supposed research studies were being posted all over the internet and elsewhere...studies that Behe apparently overlooked. Of course, close examination clearly revealed that not a single one of the studies provided the information Behe originally claimed was missing. And now, 17 years later, here comes Ball openly admitting we still don't know, really. Yet, in all this time, I haven't seen a single apology to Behe nor have I seen a single admission that he actually was right all along. And 17 years later, the claim is still essentially correct. Despite all that, we know that evolution is true.DonaldM_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Yeah, i'm not sure what Joe and Charlie's backgrounds are. They could be 15 year old buddies, they could be professors with tenure at a major university. No idea, and I don't really care because it's irrelevant. You either have good arguments or you don't. But I think this thread frustrates me because it's a great example of why it's so difficult to make progress in this area. If you're going to make a charge such as "well, information is all over the place in nature", you have to defend it. Kairos, the references you make above are exactly what i'm talking about when I say that DNA information isn't remotely the same thing as something like a binding affinity or a pattern. But when you point that out to someone and their response is "yeah it is", productive conversation becomes impossible. And guys like Joe and Charlie don't seem unintelligent by any means, so I don't see how they reconcile this issue in their head. If you can't explain something, then why are you asserting it? And i'm not saying i'm right and they're wrong - for all I know, they have some great arguments. But if you're going to run away when someone asks you to present them, you're not helping me understand you and you're not helping your own position.cheshire_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

It's hard to understand and explain something that never happened. Does anyone else find it strange that what we OBSERVE is the massive destruction of species and very rarely the origination of a new species? Do that math. All of the species USED to exist but now only a fraction do. Explain that.tgpeeler_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

@joe 36 "The fact is that abiogenesis is the best idea says to how life arose and evolution is the best idea as to how the biological diversity we see today came about." Hmm. I guess you are welcome to your opinion as much as the next guy. I think this opinion shows your Materialistic bias.tjguy_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Cheshire (etc): The basic problem CS, JA et al have is that they have to process the fact that DNA, since Crick from 1953 -- yes, sixty years ago --on, has been known to be a medium that stores a digital code, one that is expressed in complex algorithmic, step by step recipes for making proteins and for regulating the making of proteins. Here is a letter Crick wrote to his son, March 19, 1953, shortly after he and Watson had elucidated the double helix structure of DNA:
"Now we believe that the DNA is a code. [elucidated, 1957 on into the 1960's] That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)"
In short, language, code based communication networks, algorithms, programming, implementing molecular nanotech machines, and so also evident purpose, are embedded inextricably in the core of cell based life. All of this, in a gated, encapsulated, metabolising automaton that has self-replication capacity using the relevant codes. That's a lot to swallow as produced by blind, chance and mechanical necessity driven physical and chemical processes in some warm little pond or other or the like suggested prebiotic environment. One, where the routinely resorted to differential reproductive success on chance variation -- so-called natural selection -- is off the table as that is part of what has to be explained. All sorts of distractive rhetorical stunts are routinely pulled to duck, distract from, side-track or evade; all, frankly, signs of clinging to an outdated but oh so conveniently advantageous ideology by any means deemed necessary. As you are seeing. What information is, is not in doubt, and information is not equivalent to state of affairs. We may deduce information about states of affairs, whether they are necessary or contingent, and what they are in details, but that is distinct form the states of affairs. Similarly, information can be coded in terms of discrete states of storage media, from ink on paper to punched tape to braille books, to DNA molecules with the sequence of AGCT bases coding for proteins to be formed in the ribosome. In short, the concept of information you have formed from living in an information age, is not false or wrong. The "problem" for the ideological materialists and fellow travellers, is that it points to the living cell being a sophisticated information system, where the abundant evidence is there is one known adequate source for such: intelligent design. (And in case a certain G wants to object, I care not one whit for his ideologically loaded attempts to discriminate tendentiously between using upper and lower case for those words. I am here describing a generic concept and process, not giving the proper name for a scientific theory, nor am I here pretending to identify any specific designer [given the patent distinction between that tweredun and whodunit], just, that we have per induction on reliable tested sign, a basis for inferring credible best causal explanation. I am here advised by Grammar and Syntax, not ideology.) As for what information is, the essential thing is that it is what is communicated by messages that may correspond to/describe states of affairs, instruct, etc. That is, that we have a contingent and controllable phenomenon that can store a signal or a code. Air pressure varies through sound, and by controlling our voice boxes we so create vibrations that we can speak and hear speech. Ink marks on paper can take various forms, so we define glyphs that represent sounds or concepts, and use these to communicate. Instantly familiar from the nature of these posts and ASCII coded textual messages of sufficient complexity that blind -- undirected -- chance and mechanical necessity are maximally implausible as explanations. But, we, as intelligent designers, routinely compose them. Including those who must compose cases in point to object to what he cases are pointing to. Yes, there is a bit of self referential absurdity at work here. If you want you can look at a bit of a more mathematical explanation at 101 level here on. (It does not materially alter the above.) OOL is decisive. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply