Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

Gaz Vivid's point is to ask you to provide a refutation without using principles of right reason. (The trick being that to accept the possibility of a refutation is to concede non-contradiction.) Your turnabout rhetorical tactic strongly suggests that you realise he is highlighting that such principles are self-evident. Reductio ad absurdum, yet again for ideological materialism in a lab coat . . . GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, here is my 101 on self evident first principles that form a cluster of warranted credible truths safe for use in comparative testing of worldviews. What is going on is yet another way that evolutionary materialism -- while trumpeting its scientific and logical/reasonableness bona fides [cf Lewontin as already cited], reduces to self-referentially incoherent irrationality on closer inspection. (as also already posted upthread. Thread is getting way too long now, loads sloooow . . . )kairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

StephenB (477), "So is logic. The laws of logic are no less compelling than the laws of mathematics. Yet, you say the rules of logic can be abandoned in the name of evidence even though the rules of math cannot. That is neither logical nor reasonable." It is neither logical nor reasonable to claim that there is a "law" that something can be and not be at the same time, when in fact that may well be the case in quantum phenomena such as superposition. "Also, you need to know that mathematics alone cannot track down causes, much less can mathematics alone determine acausality. That is why I chuckle when you ask me to “do the math.” I makes me wonder if you are doing the math." Meaningless. "I understand the math well enough to know three things: quantum events are unpredictable, quantum events are counterintuitive, and we don’t know why." A strange statement from one who claims they must have a cause. "Your claim is that there is no why on the grounds that quantum events are counterintuitive. That is not reasonable." Text garbled here? "But, of course, you are changing your story again. For rhetorical purposes, you say that acausality is unusual with respect to quantum events. On the other hand, you extend acausality to almost every other context, insisting that not only quantum particles are acausal but that even the universe itself, could have just popped into existence." Indeed, but if that is what happened then it would have been a quantum event. You are of course aware that the universe was very small - quantum size - in the earliest fractions of a second after the Big Bang? "So, for you, the so-called quantum “exception” is not really an exception at all. It simply serves as a rhetorical dodge, seemingly rational excuse for rejecting causality on all the other important fronts, including the explanation of life and mind." No. I'm not looking to reject causality, I quite like it as I've told you before - my life is easier with it. I would prefer the quantum universe was that way too, it would be easier to understand. But it is what it is. "The cause, yet unknown, would be that there are lawful conditions that make that phenomenon happen consistently. It is interesting that you tell me that the macro world is totally different than the micro world and yet you use an example from the macro world to make your case." Only because that is all you seem to understand. "Of course I have an explanation. Causal conditions that have not yet been discovered give rise to the event." Despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for them, you have no model for them, nor has anyone else. And I suspect you have not the slightest curiosity about it either. "On the other hand, it is your claim that evidence can influence the rules of reason, so you should be able to tell us what kinds of evidence would make them rules rather than mere ideas. The reason you don’t know [or can't even conceive of the possibility] is because evidence doesn’t influence those rules." No. It's because no matter what evidence there is, we won't be able to see everywhere in the universe for all time to tell if it's violated or not. "What is interesting about all this, though, is the fact that you are open to past surprises when they challenge classical physics and causality, but you are not open to future surprises that would explain quantum causality." Oh, I am! It would be GREAT. Entirely new physics! I salivate at the prospect! No, the reason is that there is not a shred of evidence for it, nor even any model. When you come up with one I'll look again.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (480), "I claim there is no superposition of states. Gaz refute my claim without using the principles of right reason." No, I think the onus is on you to give evidence supporting such an extreme claim.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

StephenB "You reject my explanation that reason’s rules inform evidence and insist, to the contrary, that evidence informs reasons rules" I have pointed out already on a previous post why this is the case however I have a challenge for Gaz. Gaz claims the evidence shows a superposition of states. I claim there is no superposition of states. Gaz refute my claim without using the principles of right reason. If you cannot you cannot reject Stephens explanation that reasons rules inform evidence. Vividvividbleau_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

PS: Stephen, my point is that even quantum physics has laws and what happens is happening somewhere, under certain conditions. It is not happening nowhere, willy-nilly, with no constraints. That is why I just gave neutron decay when free from a nucleus as a case in point. That we do not know the sufficient causal factors and on uncertainty may not be able to learn them, does not mean that events are happening without causal patterns. Similarly, on several decades of observation, it is commonly held that the observed cosmos began in a singularity some 13.7 BYA, but that does not at all entail or support that that is acausal, a something that for no apparent reason happened out of nowhere; nor is this event any justification to seek to overthrow first principles of reason on which the whole process of science itself sits. In short, someone is either badly misinformed on the nature of the logic of cause-effect, or is using "blind 'em with science" tactics.kairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Gaz: Go look up what happens under certain conditions to RA decay rates, remembering that there are several more exotic mechanisms as well beyond the classic alpha, beta gamma, including e.g. k-capture (the most notorious variable rate case, up to 1 - 4% IIRC); try out Be-7. The fact of composition in nucleons implies composite effects and causal factors, e.g. what makes a nucleon a proton vs. a neutron. That is a causal factor, and it is associated with the beta decay instability of neutrons outside the nucleus [~ 900 s t1/2], which is of course a case of instability that is plainly contextually influenced: atoms do not last 15 minutes on average. (Last I checked protons were completely stable, and yet n and p are very closely similar.) Again, you need to address necessary not just sufficient causal factors. I repeat, there are any number of relevant causal factors and related laws for quantum events. Things are not happening nowhere, from nothing with no reason. Otherwise we would be seeing a chaos not a cosmos. And, back on topic, your side have yet to show a case on credible observation where we see the origin of digitally coded, algorithmically active functionally specific, complex [500 - 1,000 or more bits] information arising by undirected chance plus necessity. That is what has to be explained for the origin of life on evolutionary materialistic premises, and it is what has to be accounted for if the claimed origin of 10's++ millions of bits worth of dFSCI in complex novel body plans that have to be embryologically feasible is also to be adequately explained. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: "No. Mathematics is basically a tool thaat utilises certain rules." So is logic. The laws of logic are no less compelling than the laws of mathematics. Yet, you say the rules of logic can be abandoned in the name of evidence even though the rules of math cannot. That is neither logical nor reasonable. Also, you need to know that mathematics alone cannot track down causes, much less can mathematics alone determine acausality. That is why I chuckle when you ask me to "do the math." I makes me wonder if you are doing the math. ---"Fine, but if you really want to understand this stuff then soomer or later you are going to have to get down to the math, otherwwise you are just blowing hot air." I understand the math well enough to know three things: quantum events are unpredictable, quantum events are counterintuitive, and we don't know why. Your claim is that there is no why on the grounds that quantum events are counterintuitive. That is not reasonable. However, you also say that new evidence may someday show that acausality could apply in other realms. Can causality be violated in one context, two contexts, or unlimited contexts? ---"And the answer is …. ta da! I don’t know. Depends what the evidence shows. My suspicion is that it will only be an issue for certain quantum phenomena, because the really weird stuff seems to happen at the very micro energy levels where Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle means odd effects happen. Once you scale up to classical and cosmological energy levels then Heisenberg doesn’t come into play. Only my thought, though." But, of course, you are changing your story again. For rhetorical purposes, you say that acausality is unusual with respect to quantum events. On the other hand, you extend acausality to almost every other context, insisting that not only quantum particles are acausal but that even the universe itself, could have just popped into existence. So, for you, the so-called quantum "exception" is not really an exception at all. It simply serves as a rhetorical dodge, seemingly rational excuse for rejecting causality on all the other important fronts, including the explanation of life and mind. ---"Alright: here’s why I assume no causal conditions for why a sspecific radioactive particle decays at a particular time(and by the way: it would be FANTASTIC if someone came up with a causal explanation, there would be whole new areas of physics). Two identical particles, one next to another, one decays, the other never does in the history of the universe, despite the fact that they are in exactly the same quantum state and physical environment. That’s a bit like two cars sat on the same railway track next to each other, a freight train come along at speed but only one is smashed up and the other isn’t. What would the cause be?" The cause, yet unknown, would be that there are lawful conditions that make that phenomenon happen consistently. It is interesting that you tell me that the macro world is totally different than the micro world and yet you use an example from the macro world to make your case. You reject my explanation that reason’s rules inform evidence and insist, to the contrary, that evidence informs reasons rules. What evidence, then, would cause you to accept the [idea?] of non-contradiction as a law and the [idea"] of causality as a law? (Question unanswered). {We will judiciously ignore the fact that, until I brought them up, you had never heard of reason’s rules}. ---"Dunno. What evidence have you got? I think you’d need something that came up with a really great, non-contradictory, causal explanation for why the quantum universe does the weird things it does. So a non-contradictory explanation to say why a particle can exist in a superposition of states including not existing, existing in place A, existing in places B through Z…. and a causal explanation for why a radioactive particle emits at a particular time when an identical one in the same circusmtances doesn’t." Of course I have an explanation. Causal conditions that have not yet been discovered give rise to the event. On the other hand, it is your claim that evidence can influence the rules of reason, so you should be able to tell us what kinds of evidence would make them rules rather than mere ideas. The reason you don't know [or can't even conceive of the possibility] is because evidence doesn't influence those rules. Thus, even though you make the claim, you cannot provide even a hypothetical example of such a happening. What is interesting about all this, though, is the fact that you are open to past surprises when they challenge classical physics and causality, but you are not open to future surprises that would explain quantum causality. Such is the impact of materialist ideology. ---"Of course I believe they need to be interpreted. What I do not accept is your view which is basically “the evidence points to this, but I have preconceived ideas about what can and can’t be allowed to happen, therefore I shall rule out explanations X and Y because they don’t match my preconceived ideas.” I fail to see how you could even do the basics of quantum physics with such an attitude." You now acknowledge that evidence must be interpreted but all your arguments are based on the earlier assumption that the evidence speaks for itself. Just reread your posts in this session alone. Do you not see this? Evidence does not speak for itself which is thy kairosfocus, a professional physicist, has explained that quantum events are caused while the atheist physcists that inform your perspective insist that they are not. If evidence could speak for itself, there would be no such disputes. Thus, when I ask you why you believe that quantum events are uncaused, you simply answer, "because the evidence says so." It says that to atheists, but it does not say that to theists. The illogical proposition that quantum events are uncaused is not based on evidence but is rather a function of materialist ideology.StephenB_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

kai (475), "And since there are evidently cases where RA decay rates can be tweaked" We do? Interesting. Please provide more information, I've never heard of this. "That key nuclear particles such as nucleons are now thought to be composites is also suggestive." We've known this a long time. there are quarks in nucleons (also "sea quarks") and gluons as vectors for the strong force between quarks. Doesn't alter the issue.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

PPS: Gaz, you need to bone up on the logic of cause, including the distinction between necessary and sufficient causal conditions. For instance, with radioactive decay, we know of many necessary causal factors that obtain, we just do not know -- and on Heisenberg uncertainty probably can not know -- the sufficient factor that triggers a particular atom to decay now and its neighbour at a later date. We do know from the statistical pattern that something is conforming to the driving factors of the decay process. And since there are evidently cases where RA decay rates can be tweaked, it is not necessarily all internal to the atomic nucleus. That key nuclear particles such as nucleons are now thought to be composites is also suggestive.kairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Above: Thanks. GEM of TKI. PS: Over the past day or so we have seen a spectacular reduction to absurdity on the part of evolutionary materialism advocates. Vivid's rebuke is especially apt.kairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB (461), "Gaz, we still have a few questions that you have left unattended." You're right. I'll answer, then I'd be grateful for your answers to my unanswered questions. "Inasmuch as you assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of logic, do you also assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of mathematics?” (Question not yet answered)" No. Mathematics is basically a tool thaat utilises certain rules. Many of those rules can be "proven". The evidence we see relates not to mathematics, but to the natural phenomena that occur in the universe. We use mathematics to try to make sense of those phenomena -but our mathematical models of those phenomena are often very incomplete (e.g. in quantum mechanics we can't model anything much bigger than a hydrogen atom very well). It's not the mathematical laws (I wouldd prefer the term rules, though) that are the problem, the problem is our incompleteness of mathematical models used to describe phenomena. "You have said that quantum mechanics is uniquely different from the classical realm, and is, therefore, exempt from the law of causality." Well, not quite what I said. The cosmological realm is also different from the classical, although I'm not sure causality is an issue at that "super macro" level. Nor do I say that quantum mechanics is exempt from the "law" (I dislike that word! not a good descriptor for nature) of causality - on the contrary, it applies often at the quantum level - e.g. a photon may strike an electron in an energy level of an atom AND CAUSE the electron to be liberated from the atom). All I am saying is that at the quantum level there appear to be some phenomena that are not "caused" and hence causality is not a "law" that can be applied in nall circumstances. "However, you also say that new evidence may someday show that acausality could apply in other realms. Can causality be violated in one context, two contexts, or unlimited contexts? (Question not answered)" And the answer is .... ta da! I don't know. Depends what the evidence shows. My suspicion is that it will only be an issue for certain quantum phenomena, because the really weird stuff seems to happen at the very micro energy levels where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means odd effects happen. Once you scale up to classical and cosmological energy levels then Heisenberg doesn't come into play. Only my thought, though. "You reject my explanation that reason’s rules inform evidence and insist, to the contrary, that evidence informs reasons rules. What evidence, then, would cause you to accept the [idea?] of non-contradiction as a law and the [idea"] of causality as a law? (Question unanswered). {We will judiciously ignore the fact that, until I brought them up, you had never heard of reason’s rules}." Dunno. What evidence have you got? I think you'd need something that came up with a really great, non-contradictory, causal explanation for why the quantum universe does the weird things it does. So a non-contradictory explanation to say why a particle can exist in a superposition of states including not existing, existing in place A, existing in places B through Z.... and a causal explanation for why a radioactive particle emits at a particular time when an identical one in the same circusmtances doesn't. "Why do you assume that, because we don’t know the causal conditions for quantum events, that there are no causal conditions. (Question unaswered).[Please do not ask me to "do the math" because, as I have already stated, the math merely indicates unpredictability, not acausality, which is an interpretation of the evidence] What I am asking for is an argument." Fine, but if you really want to understand this stuff then soomer or later you are going to have to get down to the math, otherwwise you are just blowing hot air. Alright: here's why I assume no causal conditions for why a sspecific radioactive particle decays at a particular time(and by the way: it would be FANTASTIC if someone came up with a causal explanation, there would be whole new areas of physics). Two identical particles, one next to another, one decays, the other never does in the history of the universe, despite the fact that they are in exactly the same quantum state and physical environment. That's a bit like two cars sat on the same railway track next to each other, a freight train come along at speed but only one is smashed up and the other isn't. What would the cause be? "All data must be analyzed, processed, and intepreted. Anyone who has ever performed a scientific experiment, established a correlation between variables, or provided a rationale for the final claims of a report, knows that facts without context cannot speak for themselves. Why are you the only person alive who believes that evidence does not need to be interpreted? (New Question)." Of course I believe they need to be interpreted. What I do not accept is your view which is basically "the evidence points to this, but I have preconceived ideas about what can and can't be allowed to happen, therefore I shall rule out explanations X and Y because they don't match my preconceived ideas." I fail to see how you could even do the basics of quantum physics with such an attitude.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Petrushka (465), "I can’t really speak for GAZ, but I assume he means that if evidence (as in some of the quantum experiments) contradicts axioms based on intuition, your intuition is wrong, or your derivation of the axioms is wrong." Precisely. Thank you. You put it far more clearly and succinctly than I - bornagain77's mud picture is probably quite apt as regards the clarity of my comments sometimes! Feel free to speak for me any time, you'd do a better job than I.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (455), "Gaz, And just how does a law of decay, which you claim is caused by nothing, help you to establish evolution Gaz????" It doesn't. I never claimed it did. They are entirely different phenomena. You really ARE muddled.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

Gaz I find this following link very informative as to how right reason, especially when grounded in a solid mathematical basis, can lead to empirically verification by evidence, even though the conclusions are completely counterintuitive to the basis materialistic/atheistic thought that causes you, and others, to say such absurd things as "some things in quantum mechanics are "not caused"". Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Niels Bohrbornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not questioning astronomers. What I am saying is that original Ptolemeic system which postulated the sun rotating the Earth was derives from simple observation. Just look in the sky one day and you will see the sun - seemingly - orbit the Earth. But we know that is not the case. Galileo used his inferential reasoning to conclude a heliocentric postulate. But you are right on the last sentence of your post. You accept astronomers are reporting the best data... But without their interpretation, the data is meaningless and interpretation requires principles of right reason.above_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Regarding Galileo, I don't think anyone has seen a planet orbit the sun. In fact, I would guess that not one person in ten thousand has observed the sky as thoroughly as Galileo. I can follow the arguments that were available in Galileo's time -- particularly the phases of Venus -- but in the end I accept that astronomers are truthfully reporting the data and their best interpretations.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, What everyone else is trying to point out and gaz simly goesn't seem to get it is that the very axioms he is using to reason are the one's he is denying. Also, I would contest that if evidence points to something but intuition elsewhere it's the intution that needs to give. To illustrate this I will give you the ubiquitous story of Gelileo. When he presented his thesis to the church the one of the Bishops questioned him based on the simple fact that what was observed (evidence) was not what Galileo was suggesting. "Can he not see?" He was reported in saying. The fact of the matter is, that it was Galileo's intuition that lead him and in his writings he specifically hailed thinkers who followed their inferential reasoning and intuition contra to the evidence! Finally, evidence alone means nothing! It's through rational interpretation that evidence assumes it effectiveness.above_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

"I can’t really speak for GAZ, but I assume he means that if evidence (as in some of the quantum experiments) contradicts axioms based on intuition, your intuition is wrong, or your derivation of the axioms is wrong" So it is an either or and once again Gaz would be using the rules of right reason to argue against the rules of right reason. Vividvividbleau_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

I can't really speak for GAZ, but I assume he means that if evidence (as in some of the quantum experiments) contradicts axioms based on intuition, your intuition is wrong, or your derivation of the axioms is wrong.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Gaz re 418 Gaz you have your feet firmly planted in thin air. "Nope – if the evidence is there you can’t just ignore it. If the evidence says one thing and your reasoning another, then your reasoning is wrong." This is so ironic. Here we have Gaz using the rules of right reason, specifically the law of non contradiction ) to argue against the rules of right reason. Gaz also uses the rules of right reason, specifically LNC to argue that the evidence for the superposition of states proves that the rules of right reason does not always apply. However without the rules of right reason you have no evidence that the superposition of states is evidence against the non superposition of states which is your claim. In short without the rules of reason that you deny you have no evidence. Vividvividbleau_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

..please see this recent post by oramus ...
I'll stand by my post #460. The assertion was made that I mischaracterized mainstream biology.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Petrushka as to your quote from PZ Myers here,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-meyer-on-ids-scientific-bona-fides/#comment-359725 ,,,, please see this recent post by oramus in which he completely takes PZ apart upon only cursory inspection of the quote you cited: https://uncommondescent.com/humor/pz-myers-goes-on-strike/#comment-359724bornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Gaz, we still have a few questions that you have left unattended. Inasmuch as you assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of logic, do you also assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of mathematics?" (Question not yet answered) You have said that quantum mechanics is uniquely different from the classical realm, and is, therefore, exempt from the law of causality. However, you also say that new evidence may someday show that acausality could apply in other realms. Can causality be violated in one context, two contexts, or unlimited contexts? (Question not answered) You reject my explanation that reason's rules inform evidence and insist, to the contrary, that evidence informs reasons rules. What evidence, then, would cause you to accept the [idea?] of non-contradiction as a law and the [idea"] of causality as a law? (Question unanswered). {We will judiciously ignore the fact that, until I brought them up, you had never heard of reason's rules}. Why do you assume that, because we don't know the causal conditions for quantum events, that there are no causal conditions. (Question unaswered).[Please do not ask me to "do the math" because, as I have already stated, the math merely indicates unpredictability, not acausality, which is an interpretation of the evidence] What I am asking for is an argument. All data must be analyzed, processed, and intepreted. Anyone who has ever performed a scientific experiment, established a correlation between variables, or provided a rationale for the final claims of a report, knows that facts without context cannot speak for themselves. Why are you the only person alive who believes that evidence does not need to be interpreted? (New Question).StephenB_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

I am afraid it is only your position.
I tell you what. Send my brief statement, as you quoted it, to anyone doing research or graduate level teaching, or any prominent PhD in biology holding science writer, and ask if it is seriously wrong.
It is my position (and I believe the position of most mainstream biologists) that most genes were discovered or invented by microbes, before the Cambrian. Most evolution since has been variations on sequences that existed billions of years ago.
Heck, send it to ID writers and see if they disagree with my characterization of the mainstream position.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Gaz I find this 10 minute audio extremely fitting to your absurd position as to allowing "not caused" to be a first cause: Chance vs. God: The Battle of First Causes - John MacArthur http://www.vimeo.com/11812625 Petrushka please quit playing games and present the specific evidence for functional information generation by material/evolutionary processes as you were requested, by kairosfocus and I, so as to justify your grand claims for neo-Darwinian evolution. Else-wise you are not even in the realm of empirical science but are merely in the realm of telling warm and cozy bedtime stories to yourself so as to make yourself sleep better at night.bornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

So please, don’t present your personal opinions as official theories of science.
OK, I'll present the view of a currently prominent teacher of evolution:
There are a couple of reasons why an animal-centric biologist would be interested in bacteria. One is the principle of it; the mechanisms that animal cells use to build complex arrangements of tissues were all first pioneered in single-celled organisms. We have elaborated and added details to gene- and cell-level phenomena, but it's a collection of significant quantitative differences, with nothing known that is essentially new in metazoan cells. All the cool stuff was worked out by evolution in the 3-4billion years before the Cambrian, a potential that simply blossomed in the past half-billion years into big conglomerations of cells. Understanding how the building blocks of multicellularity work individually ought to be a prerequisite to understanding how the assemblages work.
Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: It is my position (and I believe the position of most mainstream biologists) that most genes were discovered or invented by microbes, before the Cambrian. Most evolution since has been variations on sequences that existed billions of years ago. I am afraid it is only your position. I have shown you many times that according to existing literature (not ID literature) many protein domains (approximately 25% according to the paper I have repeatedly quoted) arose after the Cambrian explosion, in metazoa. So please, don't present your personal opinions as official theories of science.gpuccio_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Petrushka (#421 - #427): Just to clarify: I said new genes are mostly derived from small changes in existing (inherited sequences). And that's completely wrong. You have misunderstood what you read. The paper you quote: "We estimate that around 24% are highly divergent members of mammalian protein families." Emphasis mine. What they are saying is that they estimate (read imagine) that part of the orphans could be derived from existing genes, and then changed so much that they are no more recognizable. That's because, as I said, orphans by definition have no recognizable significant homology to existing genes, something that you don't seem to want to aknowledge. So, just to try to explain how they could come out of the blue, these guys imagine that some of them have just cjanged so much that the supposed old homologies are no more there. The paper, again: "Interestingly, around 53% of the orphan genes contain sequences derived from transposable elements (TEs) and are mostly located in primate-specific genomic regions. This indicates frequent recruitment of TEs as part of novel genes." But transposons are not existing genes. They are active elements in no coding DSNA, which have the capacity to reshape genomes. The fact that TEs contribute to create new genes does not mean in any way that new genes share any sequence with old genes, which is what you erroneously and repeatedly stated. "Finally, we also obtain evidence that a small fraction of primate orphan genes, around 5.5%, might have originated de novo from mammalian noncoding genomic regions." Again emphasis mine. And again no mention of old genes with similar sequences. So, the story that: "The gene function may be novel, but the sequences are descended from the tree. You can have new functionality with very small changes to the sequences." is completely your invention. Just admit it, and let's pass to something else. There will always be gaps, but over time the gaps narrow. It’s a historical trend in all sciences. Gaps have nothing to do with your errors. All this is a bit over my head, but I read these papers to indicate that “new” genes are assembled from bits and pieces of old genes, making their functionality considerably more likely than a purely random process. Maybe a poor analogy, but I read it as more like assembling a sentence from assorted words, rather than assembling a sentence from unconnected letters. You are probably confounding the theory of exon shuffling for creating new multidomain protein genes with the emergence of new domains and of ORFan genes. Single domains are single functional units. ORFans are usually short genes, and arise "de novo", showing no similarities to existing genes in their sequence. That's why they are called ORFans. And even protein domain superfamilies (the about 2000 which we know) show no sequence similarities one with the other. That's exactly the way they are classified as separated superfamilies (see the SCOP site). Again I recommend that, although we may discuss on interpretations, facts should stay clear.gpuccio_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Gaz, And just how does a law of decay, which you claim is caused by nothing, help you to establish evolution Gaz???? Extreme disconnect in your overall narrative here Gaz!!! You need to be quoting a "law of spontaneously generated order" not a "law of spontaneous degenerated decay" to support you neo-Darwinian belief system. But to put some meat on the "cause" of the second law's bones, here are a few things that I have found as to the cause of the second laws "radioactive decay" which you state has no cause Gaz: Boltzmann equation An important equation in statistical mechanics that connects entropy (S) with molecular disorder (W). It can be written: S = k log W where k is Boltzmann's constant. The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann's constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. Nothing can better illustrate the positive and hectic pace of progress which the art of experimenters has made over the past twenty years, than the fact that since that time, not only one, but a great number of methods have been discovered for measuring the mass of a molecule with practically the same accuracy as that attained for a planet. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989) http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis "there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980 A "flat universe", which is actually another surprising very finely-tuned "coincidence" of the universe, means this universe, left to its own present course of accelerating expansion due to "Dark Energy", will continue to expand forever, thus fulfilling the thermodynamic equilibrium of the second law to its fullest extent (entropic "Heat Death" of the universe). The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488 Does God Exist? The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708 Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. ,,,,,,,,, I don't know about you Gaz but I think there is more than sufficient reason to believe that there is indeed a tangible "cause" to decay that is much more interesting than just saying nothing causes decay without investigating further. In fact I would say your approach is a sure guarantee of ignorance,bornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 (451), "Gaz do you have the nerve to call me “muddled” when you have repeatedly claimed the “nothing” is a “cause” of some of the things we observe happening in quantum mechanics???" Er, yes. Because you're muddled again. I'm not claiming "nothing" is a "cause", I'm claiming that some quantum level effects, such as radioactive decay, appear not to have a cause. There is a difference. I appreciate the picture, though. Glorious.Gaz_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply