We have the hat, but where’s that rabbit? High levels of information in “simple” life forms

I actually recall a philosopher (alas, I forget who) stating that intelligent design can never really be ruled out when it comes to various scientific questions, OoL included. Reason being that the pivotal step of confirming an OoL process would be to reproduce it in a lab - which means you’d be confirming both the process and the possibility of intelligence guiding it at once.

I do agree, though, about materialist aims with science.

Tell it, Denyse. They can get away with this since the ID research program is still in it’s infancy. But the materialists will have no way to spin it when new understandings and new treatments and cures come out of the application of the ID paradigm. I for one look forward to that day.

For scientific materialist the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might therefore more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” ~ Phillip Johnson

Science is typically defined as objective investigation (discovering and testing facts)–the means for making faster airplanes and better medicines.

But there’s another definition held implicitly in the scientific establishment, and it is tantamount to the philosophy of materialism or naturalism. This is the idea that science may legitimately employ only natural causes in explaining everything we observe.

The way this definition of science operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. Darwinists don’t ask whether life evolved from a sea of chemicals; they only ask how it evolved. They don’t ask whether complex life forms evolved from simpler forms; they only ask how it happened. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must (and therefore can) account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. ~ Nancy Pearcey

Reason being that the pivotal step of confirming an OoL process would be to reproduce it in a lab - which means you’d be confirming both the process and the possibility of intelligence guiding it at once.

Very good. Thank you for that. Same with Dawkins’ example of dog breeding as proof of NDE, I suppose.

Bevets, I found this yesterday and find it fitting to that very shallow “only natural causes argument” of materialist

Declaration of Scientific Principle:

When in the course of scientific endeavor, it becomes apparent that deeper truths exist, a decent respect to Nature requires that such truths be explored. We hold these truths to be scientifically approachable, that all forms of existence are interconnected, that they possess certain fundamental and unalienable properties. That to describe this interconnectedness and these properties, successive theories shall be constructed by mankind, deriving their explanatory and predictive powers from the approximations of laws of Nature. That whenever any theory becomes inadequate of these ends, it is the duties of mankind to modify it or to abolish it, and to establish new ones, laying the foundation on such principles and organizing the structures in such forms, as to mankind shall seem most likely to reflect their understanding and knowledge of Nature. In memory of Thomas Jefferson (October, 2003)

off topic: here is a song for all those who are writing a book.

http://video.google.com/videop.....;plindex=0

“if intelligent design is correct, scientists would not see the need to do any research because Goddunit”

Well now they’re being honest with us. What is most important is not the truth, but their jobs. They would rather protect their status/ paycheck then to entertain the possibility that evolution may be wrong. But this assumption is as false as their belief in evolution. Cosmologist have not been put out of business because of the Big Bang theory. It is impossible to learn everything. They can continue to study biology until the end of time.

Denyse,

Wow: according to this last bit, “materialists” have been brainwashed (”trained to think a certain way”), are uncreative, unquestioning, not independent, are like dogs (”barking in unison”), rely simply on feelings (”it all feels so GOOD”), are analogous to drunkards (”the headache doesn’t happen until sobriety sets in”), and are prone to scapegoating — and even then choose the wrong targets.

To follow this (addiing “I suspect” and “I suppose” in lieu of evidence), that would make non-materialists independent thinkers, creative, questioning, indivdiualists, reliant on thought, sober, and not prone to scapegoating.

Goodness gracious, Denyse! Try using a broader brush next time: you’re not generalizing enough.

Turnabout is fair play, GAW.

Just delurking for a moment here–it seems to me that GAW has a good point; O’Leary’s post and subsequent comments are almost comically overgeneralized, and not worthy of a site run by Dr. Dembski. Angryoldfatman, we should lead by example, I think. Justifying juvenile accusations by saying “They did it first!” is, well, juvenile. Those of us who are interested in seeing ID as science gain traction need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

These guys are sure pushing the envelope of what is considered natural.

“We found that applying magnetic pulses to the
brain when an anesthetic was placed in between caused the brain to feel the
effect of said anesthetic as if the test subject had actually inhaled the same.
We further found that drinking water exposed to magnetic pulses, laser light
or microwave when an anesthetic was placed in between also causes brain
effects in various degrees. Through additional experiments, we verified that
the said brain effect was indeed the consequence of quantum entanglement.
These results defy common belief that quantum entanglement alone cannot
be used to transmit information and support the possibility of a quantum
brain.”

http://www.neuroquantology.com.....ew/116/111

I can’t find in their papers if they actually tested for the specific molecules in the or of the subjects. (Surely they must of wouldn’t you think?)

Either way, if it is just a placebo effect in the brain, or if it is actual molecules being formed in the brain/body, it is profoundly breakthrough science, and will surely ruffle plenty of materialistic feathers on what is allowed to be considered natural and what is not.

getawitness,

Nearly all experiments in evolutionary biology are based on the Darwinian model. That sounds a little bit like barking in unison. It is also a model that has no empirical underpinning. I actually do not rule out creativity from the biologists because in the course of writing their reports they can get very creative in explaining their contradictory findings.

Maybe you could enlighten us as to why all this effort and money is being expended on a paradigm that has no empirical support except for the trivial unless there is some type of external pressure that is requiring this lock step behavior.

Sounds sort of like Stalin’s purge of the geneticists to get a political solution that is acceptable.

Denyse,

But you are not really answering his question. To make progress ID has to answer its critics. If ID is correct how does one do science? Of course the answer is simple for most people and has been around for a long time. This indicates to me that the critic was really masking a religious insecurity. Scientist have been investigating the design of the world since long before evolution story telling began.

I really would have liked to been there but I’m only at St Mike’s on Thursdays.

You’re absolutely right, Denyse! Whether they realize it or not, mainstream scientists are under some sort of satanic influence. They may be well meaning people, but they don’t realize that ultimately their “methodological naturalism” is just a tool to DENY GOD. In fact, I believe all the supposedly good things that have come out of science in last couple of centuries are just side effects and not the main purpose of Science. Just think if we could bring back the study of Design and God back into science(I’m going to be frank here: I don’t believe aliens are the designers); I think we would see a lot more progress. Darwinian thinking has permeated many areas of science. Neuroscience has pretty much done away with the soul, and insists that our minds are really just a function of our biological brains i.e. they have no REAL intelligence. Researchers at pharmaceutical companies just sit around waiting for cures to randomly appear in test tubes, because of what they were taught about the universe. If Intelligent Design were the dominant paradigm, just imagine how many dollars would be saved by a more efficient drug design methodology based on Design principles. I think cosmologists are slowly coming around to understanding that things are designed (see the Anthropic principle), but I think they are being held back by their Darwinian upbringing. It won’t be long before people begin to realize that ID is a superior theory to mindless Darwinism. Darwin may have said that God is dead, but we all know Darwin is dead and that his pet theory is dying a slow death.

Peter: “If ID is correct how does one do science?”

One answer to that is, researchers, who would otherwise be at a investigatory dead end, could be about the business of exploiting the structures that they find, to the end of bettering our world.

Jerry,

Contradictory findings do not bark in unison. As for

Nearly all experiments in evolutionary biology are based on the Darwinian model.

That’s because they are in, uh, evolutionary biology.

But hey, thanks for bringing Stalin in: that satisfies my call for more broad-brush thinking. Next time, be sure to mention that every bad person since 1859 was inspired by Darwin.

getawitness,

“That’s because they are in, uh, evolutionary biology.”

Uh, do you understand anything about science in general or evolutionary biology in particular. Your comment indicates you don’t. So maybe you should recuse yourself from discussions that involve science and observe and ask questions. Just to let you understand what is at stake; no area of science should use a paradigm with out empirical backing?

I brought in Stalin because there is lots of evidence of purges going on in biology though they are not eliminated the same way that Stalin did the elimination. I find the comparison appropriate. Those who disagree are eliminated or silenced. Let me know why that is not an appropriate comparison.

“Next time, be sure to mention that every bad person since 1859 was inspired by Darwin.”

Nice juvenile comment. As I said maybe you should recuse yourself from science discussions.

Jerry,

We clearly disagree about whether evolutionary biology has empirical support. I think it does. That doesn’t make me ignorant of biology, unless most biologists are also ignorant of biology. Of course there are disagreements about the details of evolutionary change, but that’s all for the good.

Your mention of Stalin was hyperbolic, pure and simple.

getawitness: “That’s because they are in, uh, evolutionary biology.”

One can accept an evolutionary model without accepting darwinism, the blind watchmaker hypothesis, etc.

One solution to what O’Leary observes is akin to a mathematical uniqueness proof. Life appears designed. Those looking for an evolutionary pathway that explains the “apparent” design will continue to search unless it is ruled out as impossible. To some, it is not sufficient for ID to satisfy Occam’s razor–the most likely explanation–it needs to be the only explanation.

An interesting approach would be to prove that information is something other than matter or energy (as N. Weiner asserts). Different arrangements of matter and energy do not create information, but they can be the repository for information. A successful origin of life theory needs to account for the origin of information.

getawitness,

I provided a theistic evolutionist about what ID believes. One thing that I believe that is common with nearly everyone that supports ID is that they believe thate there is no evidence for the Darwinian paradigm except for trivial examples. We have yet to find anyone including evolutionary biologists to provide any empirical support for neo Darwinism beyond the tivial or to counter claims made by people like Michael Behe in his two books that are not nit picking or specious.

Since you say you believe that there is empirical support, then you should help us in this debate and provide the evidence. That way we can learn or maybe you can learn that what is supposed to be empirical support is really weak or not even appropriate. Allan MacNeill, an evolutionary biologist who is at the forefront of the discipline, admitted here just a couple weeks ago that there were models but not empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

If you decide to provide support for neo Darwinism, we will be quite civil and it should be interesting to see where it leads.

jerry, I’m trying to find where Alan MacNeill said that and I’m having a hard time locating the exact comment. He’s said a number of things, not all of which I agree with. Could you provide a link?

Two things for the record: First, I’m not a scientist: I read some of the primary literature but get it mostly secondhand, much like most readers of, say, The Edge of Evolution. So I’m not going to get into a citation fight. Second, I don’t take a position on abiogenesis. Not that you asked, but I thought I’d get that out of the way.

My view of the rest of evolution is kind of eclectic: I think a number of mechanisms have operated, some simultaneously, some preferred at different times and under different conditions. These would include classic neo-Darwinism, evo-devo, lots of symbiotic processes in early bacterial evolution (see Lynn Margulis), etc. I think punctuated equilibrium seems like a pretty good way of understanding the timescales of evolutionary change (assuming of course that the consensus view of the earth’s age is accurate). I also have a developmental systems view of evolution in its totality that does not easily separate the organism from its environment: this accords with the views of people like Margulis (mentioned above), Susan Oyama and Humberto Maturana/ Francisco Varela.

It is of course an assumption that evolution works natural mechanisms. But why should I abandon that assumption? It’s also an assumption that the continents got to their present configuration on their own via naturalistic mechanisms. Now, there are lots of debates about the specific mechanisms of plate movement: the role of mantle plumes, the configuration of the boundary between the lower and upper mantle, etc. etc. Nobody knows exactly how we got from Pangea to now. But I don’t think that’s a reason to abandon the naturalistic premise.

Hi Peter:

Re 13: If ID is correct how does one do science?

Perhaps, the way the founders of modern science and many of its sub-disciplines by and large did it?

GEM of TKI

I brought in Stalin because there is lots of evidence of purges going on in biology though they are not eliminated the same way that Stalin did the elimination.

Can you give us this “lots of evidence of purges”. I don’t see it.

I’ll take Sternberg as read. You imply that there is a lot of purging going on, so I expect you have evidence for multiple events.

Bob

getawitness,

You stated a lot of proposed mechanisms for evolution, none of which have been proven in the lab. Whereas ID/Genetic Entropy has a proven mechanism for “information implementation” from a higher realm/dimension with breakthroughs in quantum non-locality.
As well, Why should the foundational principle of Genetic Entropy be discarded when upon critical analysis of evidence all biological adaptations conform to it, as well, Genetic Entropy lines up with two of the foundational tenets of science; the second law of thermodynamics; and the law of conservation of information.

Even the trivial gains in complexity for HIV (the ONLY gains in complexity ever completely proven to the molecular level in favor of evolution, by the way) came at a cost of complexity for the higher organism (us) it attacked. Thus even in this “hard proof” for evolution we find an overall loss in complexity for life that does not violate the foundational principle of Genetic Entropy.

No getawitness, evolution is a theory in search of ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and by all rights should be banished to the dust bin of history!

Bob O’H,

Maybe we should develop a laundry list here of the “purges”, but in addition to Sternberg we could start with Dembski himself, Marks who hasn’t been sacked but his research restricted, Gonzalez from Iowa State where some people voting on tenure openly admitted his support for ID was a factor. Have you looked at what the Lehigh biology department has publicly said about Behe. Do you think with that announcement that Behe would be able to get tenure today? Others may be able to cite other examples.

When I use the term purge, I obviously am not speaking of Stalin like methods but agree with getawitness it is a little bit of hyperbole but it was to make a point especially about the lock step behavior for a paradigm with no empirical support. Now that does sound like Stalin.

Bob, I suggest an experiment. Start defending ID in faculty meetings if you are in academia or in conferences and in reports not necessarily as a pro ID person yourself but only just as one who says they must be heard because they raise some interesting questions and should be considered in discussions of evolutionary biology. After all if there is a God or if we believe in SETI maybe one of these intelligences may have done something.

What do you think your survival prospects will be?

I believe there may be a little known movie coming out about this alleged, and much denied, “purging” of ID friendly scholars in February:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

jerry,

You make an interesting point, and one I’m broadly sympathetic with. I do agree that the academic tenure process (for example) may cause some people to play things close to the vest during their early years, which is exactly when they should be most innovative and bold. A few years ago, George Will proposed that tenure might be reversed: given to researchers in their first decade or so, when they most need protection, and then slowly taken away later as results are demanded. I’ve never been sure what to make of that proposal, but it’s an interesting thought experiment at least.

getawitness,

You list a lot of potential mechanisms or explanations for justifying a naturalistic view of evolution. We can take each one in isolation to see if it really addresses the main issues under debate.

We have done this many times and it gets repeated as new persons come to the site and are not aware of what came before them.

For example, punctuated equilibrium is not a mechanism of biological change. It just says that something happened very quickly and assumed it was by naturalistic means. It will go into a lot of explanations such as geographic isolation, founder effects etc but offers no evidence to support it other than some speculative models.

Punctuated equilibrium was developed to ostensibly cover up the embarrassing fact that there were no transitions to support the naturalistic paradigm. It is a model, and nothing more. it does not based on any empirical evidence except the lack of fossil evidence nor is there much support for the elements of this model other than for trivial results.

I don’t want to get in to a long discussion of punctuated equilibrium but use it as a quick example of something that has little or no empirical backing of any consequence but which is accepted as fact by many. It is typical of the entire discipline of evolutionary biology.

I will get you the thread for the MacNeill quote. It was just a few weeks ago before the debate of Provine and Nelson which I understand from an observer was a low key event with neither side addressing the other directly very much.

Denyse:

I believe that making a distinction between “only natural causes” and “only material causes,” as you do in post 6, goes a long way in helping to define the differences in approach toward science between ID-oriented scientists and orthodox scientists.

The orthodox restrict science to “only material causes,” and require materialistic explanations — no matter how fanciful (and becoming ever the more so, as if for our what? our entertainment?) — for any and all natural effects.

ID adherents restrict science to “only natural causes,” but have the temerity to point out that there are natural effects that cannot be scientifically explained by purely materialistic causes, introducing — horror of horrors — the scientific possibility (nay, the scientific likelihood) of supernatural causes for some (but by no means all) natural effects; causes that, by definition, are beyond the ken of science to know.

The “throw up your hands and say God did it” argument against ID is a canard. In fact, I don’t see, in day-to-day science, how the two approaches make much practical difference.

It’s on the “edge of evolution” where the orthodox are loathe (with Eve, see Genesis 3:5) to give up the deceit that “ye shall be as gods.”

Meanwhile ID adherents, already recognizing that there must be a power (or powers) greater than themselves, are not uncomfortable allowing — in both their personal lives as human beings and their professional lives as scientists — that there may be valid epistemologies that originate in spiritual realm, and that can be known only via non-scientific principles such as faith.

Patrick,

Thank you for finding the quote. I was just able to find it and it was on a discussion starting November 9th titled

“Future Risk Assessment in the Genome”

In it Dr. MacNeill responded to a comment laying out the complexities of macro-evolution that there seemed to be no answer for.

ellazimm,

Why don’t you pick out what you think are the strongest arguments in the TO faqs for macro evolution and we can debate a couple if people here are willing.

See what happens.

Ah, Jerry, so your examples of purges are:
1. Dembski - a mathematician and theologian. And not a biologist.
2. Marks - a computer scientist, who as you admit hasn’t been sacked. Also not a biologist.
3. Gonzalez - an astronomer. i.e. not a biologist.
4. Behe - at last, a biologist! Who still has his job, just like Sternberg.

I second Jerry, ellazimm, since you seem so confident and sincere, pick out a couple of what you consider your strongest proofs, bring them over, and then watch them melt into nothing under the light of investigation.

BA77,

I didn’t think ID had a mechanism.
I’m also unconvinced that the “law of conservation of information” is a “foundational tenet of science” — at least it hasn’t been recognized as such outside a very small circle of scientists. Your references to genetic entropy as foundational (I assume you’re talking about the work of Sanford) are kind of idiosyncratic. As I mentioned a few days ago, I’ve ordered the Sanford book from interlibrary loan and will read it.

jerry [30], if you look carefully, you’ll see I didn’t identify PE as a mechanism but rather as a good understanding of the timescale of evolutionary change. I do think there are a number of transitional models (despite critiques, for example, I think we have a pretty good undertanding of whale evolution), so I disagree with your contention that “there were no transitions to support the naturalistic paradigm.” If PE was proposed for that reason, wouldn’t it have been accepted quickly? But in fact it was fought tooth and nail by many, many others in the evolutionary biology community.

Here’s an pattern I’ve been noticing: when evolutionary biologists disagree, ID folks say that means Darwinism/ naturalism/ evolution etc. is dead (or dying, whatever). When evolutionary biologists agree, ID folks say that means they operate in lockstep, are brainwashed, etc. So both agreement and disagreement become de facto evidence for the ID position. Dissents from neo-Darwinism by (for example) evo-devo are signs of the poverty of evolutionary theory. Yet evolutionary theory is impoverished because it won’t entertain dissent!

Bob O’H (#37): “Ah, Jerry, so your examples of purges are:
1. Dembski - a mathematician and theologian. And not a biologist.
2. Marks - a computer scientist, who as you admit hasn’t been sacked. Also not a biologist.
3. Gonzalez - an astronomer. i.e. not a biologist.
4. Behe - at last, a biologist! Who still has his job, just like Sternberg.”

An amazingly weak rejoinder to Jerry # 27. A great example of deliberate mischaracterization of the proferred argument. Jerry clearly explained his use of the term “purge” as intense persecution. It would be interesting how you would argue that these individuals weren’t persecuted for expressing their unnacceptable to orthodoxy beliefs. Phony “logic” - yes, there is only one biologist on this list, but how does this logically imply that the reason is that the neoDarwinian theory of all evolution is the truth (as opposed to several other possible reasons)? Deliberate refusal to engage an argument - the thought experiment: try questioning scientistic assumptions of origins in any academic context. What are the likely effects on one’s career?

Excellent response Patrick,

getawitness: You have got to be kidding me if you think whale evolution happened!

You guys can’t even come with one incontrovertible mutation, to a living organism, that can withstand scrutiny for being truly beneficial.

As far as a mechanism, I just noted that quantum non-locality has been advanced to the level of complex biological molecules. This demonstration of “transcendent” information being physically implemented onto a complex biological molecule, provides a very solid demonstration for proof of principle, for the Theistic postulation of ID. Do you deny my assertion? If so, how is the fact that transcendent information is clearly being demonstrated to “dom^in^ate” biological molecules contrary to the Theistic postulation of Information coming from a higher dimension to create CSI in life? It clearly is not contrary to the postulation. It clearly demonstrates that the mechanism for “information implementation” from a higher dimension does indeed exist in nature, IF a Being from a higher dimension chose to use it to implement information at different times in our history!
Unlike evolution which has no demonstration for information originating by totally natural processes, we (Theistic IDists) have a demonstration of complex information 1. Being transcendent of any physical laws of this universe 2. This complex information actually dom^in^ating biological molecules from this transcendent dimension!

Can someone please explain something for me? Is ID about finding supernatural explanations? I’m getting confused since I hear different answer from different people (and even different posts on this blog).

getawitness,

There are several levels at which this debate is being played out. The most important one is the educational level. In the schools, textbooks and curriculum there is the message of consensus and that no debate is necessary. The reason ID exists is that a science with little or no empirical backing is portrayed as fact to the high school and college student when in fact there is serious debate that is being hidden from them. Shouldn’t the students be told there is no empirical evidence for any mechanism for macro evolution and what is presented is highly speculative. Any textbook or curriculum that included that would not see the light of day in this country and be branded “creationist” or religion based but it would be a more accurate curriculum.

Along with this message that there is no debate comes the message that humans are no different than any other animal and are just a different branch on the tree of life which by the way is a mythical tree.

And then you get the message in the popular press and extolled by people like Dawkins that Darwin’s theory enabled him to be a fulfilled atheist. And I have heard Dawkins praised by instructors both at the high school and college level.

So at the instructional level and in the popular press the students/people are getting a completely different view of the debate than what is happening at the science level.

When we harp on another scientist disagreeing with the Darwinian paradigm all we are doing is just emphasizing another example of something the student or average person will never see. The typical person thinks it is a done deal and it is just religious nuts prattling about their bizarre religious beliefs who are questioning Darwin.

What most people here care about here is that the truth be promulgated at the popular level. And that is certainly not being done.

So the disagreements are taking place as you would expect in any area of science but many issues are off the table automatically by fiat and this lock step behavior of excluding certain areas of research also appears in what can be allowed in the curriculum and what must appear in the popular press in defense of Darwinism.

You keep on trying to make the ID people look bad when from what I can see they are being the reasonable people in this debate. Your observations seem mostly forced in one direction and are easily countered. I suggest as an intellectual exercise look at it from the other direction and try to understand the ID positions and then see who is being the most reasonable as opposed to searching for anything to make the ID people look bad.

I can probably make a better argument for the naturalistic explanation than most of the anti-ID people who come here. I know what most of the reasonable arguments are but I also know their shortcomings.

As an aside if you want to debate the forrest animal to whale transitions by all means. This appears to be the best the Darwinist can come up with. Each of the species is so far apart that they are only vaguely related to each other and some of the transitions are real stretches. In none of the presentations I have seen is there a discussion of the various complex transitions that would have to take place for an animal to actually become a whale.

BA77,

We agree on at least one thing: ID leads toward theology. I’ve argued this before, contra DaveScot and Joseph. (As I’ve said before, I’m a Christian though not an IDist or a creationist. If that confuses some people, so be it.)

I’m thinking about your comment but I must admit a lot of it doesn’t make sense to me. To my ear, a lot of it seems like so much woo. For example, your conclusion:

Unlike evolution which has no demonstration for information originating by totally natural processes, we (Theistic IDists) have a demonstration of complex information 1. Being transcendent of any physical laws of this universe 2. This complex information actually dom^in^ating biological molecules from this transcendent dimension!

I’ve seen no demonstration of (1) in science and can’t make head or tail of (2). What are you talking about?

By the way, I don’t understand your babysitter filter. Can’t you turn it off? And why, if it refuses “model” and “dominate,” does it allow you to refer to “hard” evidence?

Bob O’H,

Dembski and Marks are dealing with biology. Do you disagree?

Let me know if you come across an untenured professor suggesting ID like ideas anywhere in biology courses in the US or the EU. There are probably some but I doubt many will survive if they do. Do you disagree with this observation?

By the way I forgot to mention Dean Kenyon who was once the darling of abiogenesis but then recanted and was restricted on what he could teach in biology because he suggested there was alternative to Darwin. Also I believe Scott Minnich has been restricted on what he can teach and say in his courses. He also teaches biology.

I am sure there are others and maybe a list will be generated on those actually censored and those who where threatened with sanctions if they deviated.

But Bob, maybe you could counter this list with all the examples of how ID proponents are allowed to thrive in academia. Also have you heard of the Council of Europe and their enlighten view on ID? Since you have a good understanding of what ID folks believe, are you protesting their “witch hunt” against ID?

You could inform your colleagues of the injustice and get a petition started that would help set the record straight.

Getawitness:
Do you know about quantum non-locality? If so for a long time it was limited to transcendent information for sub-atomic particles being communicated faster that the speed of light no matter where in the universe. Now the evidence is extended to complex molecules instead of just sub-atomic particles. Thus providing hard proof for the mechanism postulated by Theism, i.e. that information from a “higher dimension” can “do^min^ate” sub-atomic molecules to the point of assembling complex molecules with proper information input into this dimension. This is because it is now proven to be possible for man himself to mimic this same process by manipulation of non-local information properly!

proof of principle:

[QA01.04] Quantum Control of Molecules
Kent R. Wilson (University of California, San Diego)

Quantum control of molecules has recently rapidly moved from a theoretical field involving simple dilute gas phase molecules with the participation of only a few quantum states to experiments involving large molecules in the condensed phase at room temperature. These advances flow in part from the use of new techniques such as multiphoton control, the molecular pi pulse, and adaptive learning control (in which the experiment automatically learns from successive trials to optimize the light field with respect to the experimental goal). Applications of quantum control and its point of view to other fields are now becoming numerous: control of electronic, as well as nuclear, dynamics; automatic testing of theorems; control of large molecules in solution (including proteins); use of quantum control to discover the nature of chemical reactions; optimization of multiphoton microscopy; and quantum control concepts applied to develop a molecular scale pH meter.

please note this fact:

“control of large molecules in solution (including proteins)”

It is called evidence getawitness.

BA77,

Thanks for that information. I looked up Kent Wilson — an interesting figure who died around 2000. You cited a conference abstract but not a peer-reviewed paper — more important, I don’t think even the abstract supports your claims as you have put them.

In any event, inspired by your comment, I looked up some more recent work in the field. I found a review article by Asher Peres and Daniel R. Terno, “Quantum Information and Relativity Theory,” that you might be interested in. It’s in Reviews of Modern Physics 76 (2004), 93-123. The section on quantum nonlocality reads as follows:

Phenomena like those illustrated in Fig. 1 are often attributed to ‘‘quantum nonlocality’’ and have led some authors to speculate on the possibility of superluminal communication (actually, instantaneous communication). One of these proposals (Herbert, 1981) looked reasonably serious and aroused enough interest to lead to investigations disproving its possibility (Glauber, 1986) and in particular to the discovery of the no-cloning
theorem (Dieks, 1982; Wootters and Zurek, 1982). Let us examine more closely the origin of these claims of nonlocality.

Bell’s theorem (1964) asserts that it is impossible to mimic quantum theory by introducing a set of objective local ‘‘hidden’’ variables. It follows that any classical imitation of quantum mechanics is necessarily nonlocal. However Bell’s theorem does not imply the existence of any nonlocality in quantum theory itself. In particular, relativistic quantum field theory is manifestly local. The simple and obvious fact is that information has to be carried by material objects, quantized or not. Therefore quantum measurements do not allow any information to be transmitted faster than the characteristic velocity that appears in the Green’s functions of the particles emitted in the experiment. In a Lorentz-invariant theory, this limit is the velocity of light.

In summary, relativistic causality cannot be violated by quantum measurements. The only physical assumption that is needed to prove this assertion is that Lorentz transformations of the spacetime coordinates are implemented in quantum theory by unitary transformations of the various operators. This is the same as saying that the Lorentz group is a valid symmetry of the physical system (Weinberg, 1995). (Emphasis added)

I’m not sure how, or whether, Wilson’s experiments have been followed up since his death. Clearly, however, your claims about “transcendent” (e.g., non-material) information being communicated faster than light should not be accepted without question.

Getawitness,

I can’t believe you are questioning the validity of quantum non-locality.

Quantum Nonlocality and the Possibility of Superluminal Effects

John G. Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/.....qm_nl.html

of special note:

Nonlocality means that in quantum systems correlations not possible through simple memory are somehow being enforced faster-than-light across space and time. Nonlocality, peculiar though it is, is a fact of quantum systems which has been repeatedly demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/.....;…7J

An account of the overarching metaphysics of Western science explicates why the violation of the Bell Inequalities is so astonishing,

http://64.233.167.104/search?q.....&gl=us

Bell’s inequality test: more ideal than ever

Alain Aspect

of special note:
The experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities confirms that a pair of
entangled photons separated by hundreds of metres must be
considered a single non-separable object — it is impossible to assign
local physical reality to each photon.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect’s name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn’t matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Two-setting Bell Inequalities for Graph States
Dated: April 14, 2006)
http://www.citebase.org/fullte.....%2F0510007

Bell inequalities [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] have already been
used for several decades as an essential tool for pointing
out the impossibility of local realism in describing the results
arising from correlation measurements on quantum
states.

[1] J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964); for a review see R.
Werner and M. Wolf, Quant. Inf. Comp. 1 (3), 1
(2001); for results on multipartite Bell inequalities see
Refs. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and G. Svetlichny, Phys. Rev.
D 35, 3066 (1987); A.V. Belinskii and D.N. Klyshko,
Usp. Fiz. Nauk 163 (8), 1 (1993); N. Gisin and H.
Bechmann-Pasquinucci, Phys. Lett. A 246, 1 (1998); A.
Peres, Found. Phys. 29, 589 (1999); D. Collins, N. Gisin,
S. Popescu, D. Roberts, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 88, 170405 (2002); W. Laskowski, T. Paterek, M.
?Z
ukowski, and ? C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200401
(2004).
[2] M. Froissart, Nuovo Cimento B 64, 241 (1981).
[3] N.D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990).
[4] M. Ardehali, Phys. Rev. A 46, 5375 (1992).
[5] S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Phys. Lett. A 166, 293
(1992).
[6] I. Pitowsky and K. Svozil, Phys. Rev. A 64, 014102
(2001).
[7] M. ?Zukowski and ? C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
210401 (2002).
[8] R.F. Werner and M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 64, 032112
(2001).

I could go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing, If you insist on denying quantum non-locality, I shall not waste my time debating you any more for it is impossible to debate someone who is that unreasonable!

BA77,

I’m sorry not to continue the debate with you. I’ll just point out that your first and third sources are relatively old (1997 and 1999); your second source is in philosophy, not experimental science, and is a dissertation, not a peer-reviewed publication; the Talbot paper (also not peer-reviewed) contains nonsense worthy of Shirley MacLaine or Tom Cruise; and the cite from arxiv.org is, first, not peer reviewed, and, second, of unclear relevance to your overall claims. So: one peer-reviewed scientific paper, from a decade ago. The average citation half-life of a paper in particle physics is less than five years. So that’s old.

I’m asking about the experimental confirmation of what you’re saying now, in 2007. Consider this: the Cramer paper you cited was from 1997. On John Cramer’s website is an August 2007 presentation, by him, in which he says the experiments to test his idea of faster-than-light communication haven’t even been done! In the PowerPoint he writes that “There are no obvious “show stoppers” that would prevent the proposed measurements. Nevertheless, because of their implications, they have a low probability of success.” His emphasis. So, pardon my skepticism, but you’re blowing smoke.

getawitness, he is talking about two way communication, which works off of the FACT that quantum non-locality telling an entangled particle what to do is already an established fact. Quantum non-locality has been pretty much accepted in physics (except by die-hard materialists) ever since Aspects work in 1982.

Confirmation of a quantum non-locality is called Bell inequalities, thus the eight references I cited;

[1] J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964); for a review see R.
Werner and M. Wolf, Quant. Inf. Comp. 1 (3), 1
(2001); for results on multipartite Bell inequalities see
Refs. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and G. Svetlichny, Phys. Rev.
D 35, 3066 (1987); A.V. Belinskii and D.N. Klyshko,
Usp. Fiz. Nauk 163 (8), 1 (1993); N. Gisin and H.
Bechmann-Pasquinucci, Phys. Lett. A 246, 1 (1998); A.
Peres, Found. Phys. 29, 589 (1999); D. Collins, N. Gisin,
S. Popescu, D. Roberts, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 88, 170405 (2002); W. Laskowski, T. Paterek, M.
?Z
ukowski, and ? C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200401
(2004).
[2] M. Froissart, Nuovo Cimento B 64, 241 (1981).
[3] N.D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990).
[4] M. Ardehali, Phys. Rev. A 46, 5375 (1992).
[5] S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Phys. Lett. A 166, 293
(1992).
[6] I. Pitowsky and K. Svozil, Phys. Rev. A 64, 014102
(2001).
[7] M. ?Zukowski and ? C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
210401 (2002).
[8] R.F. Werner and M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 64, 032112
(2001).

You can look them up if you want, but the main point is that Quantum non-locality is an established fact, I quoted Cramer’s paper for the fact that he states it has been proven repeatedly before he tries to develope his thesis for two way communication.

But I am not interested in two way communication. I am only interested in the fact that “information” itself is proven to be transcendent of any known physical laws; plus it is proven to have dominion over sub-atomic particles as well as over complex protein molecules, and thus provides a clear mechanism for the Theistic postulation for ID of Information implementation from a higher dimension.

If you deny the validity of quantum non-locality (which it appears you are doing), you have not done your homework and are needlessly wasting both of our time.

BA77, I’m not questioning quantum nonlocality as such. I just don’t understand the implications you claim to draw from it or this notion that information is “transcendent.” Nor can I see what any of this has to do with ID.

Dembski and Marks are dealing with biology. Do you disagree?

Neither has ever been active in biology, so it’s difficult for us to purge them from a field they’ve never been in.

Damn, we’ll have to invade computer science if we want to get a bit of good old-fashioned persecution going!

Bob

getawitness,

What is the main question of ID? I would say the main question is, Where did the information come from in the first place? As such, is it not crucial to define the actual “physical” characteristics of information?

When we look for physical characteristics of information we realize truly weird stuff.

If we write on a paper is the ink or paper information? If we record the information of a tape recorder, Is our sound or the magnetic tape information? If we record the tape to a CD is the binary code or laser now the information?

No of course not, the information was just transfered through several different material mediums, The information itself stayed constant, though transfer through different mediums ,clearly demonstrating that it is completely transcendent of the material medium it was on.
But is information passive or dominant of material objects?
One could argue that the proof of universal constants remaining constant throughout the history of the universe is proof of “information” being dom^in^ate of the “material” realm.
And in my view it is a very strong proof, Yet the violation of Bell inequalities, actually demonstrated the active “real-time” physical dominance of “true” information over the material realm.

When something becomes physically true (wave collapse) in one part of this universe this “information” of reality is transmitted to all points of this universe instantaneously, and if a wave/particle in any other part of the universe happens to be entangled with the wave collapse it is proven to be instantaneously effected. Thus, “true” information demonstrates its dom^inance of the physical realm on top of the unchanging universal constants
This is why the violation of Bell inequalities is so important to ID, it gives concrete proof of “true” information unique transcendent physical status in this universe.

When I showed proof that “protein” molecules are also subject to quantum non-locality, I showed that “true” information is not limited to the sub-atomic realm but that “true” information extends its influence over the material realm up to the macroscopic level of the complex biological molecules that construct life. Thus showing/proving that the mechanism for the “information implementation” of Theistic ID does indeed exist in nature.

Bob O’H,

“Dembski and Marks are dealing with biology. Do you disagree?

Neither has ever been active in biology, so it’s difficult for us to purge them from a field they’ve never been in.”

Bob, the master of disingenuous answers or Bob, the king of the “distinction without difference” remarks.

Bob, academia has purged/restricted them for investigating areas of biology. Whether they are in biology or not is of no consequence. They are being restricted. Did you ever think that the vacuousness of your answers really makes the other person’s points?

I noticed you did not take up any of the other suggestions about defending either ID proponents or those in biology willing to accept ID proponents. Are you willing to defend them? How many ID proponents do you know that are active in biology?

ellazimm you stated:

I was invited to present some of the empirical evidence in support of evolutionary theory I would have to say the molecular sequence evidence is very compelling.

To Which I refer you to:

Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’

http://www.creationontheweb.co....._63-69.pdf

as well as:

Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si.....xed=google

as well as:

http://www.genome.gov/25521554

New Findings Challenge Established Views on Human Genome

BETHESDA, Md., Wed., June 13, 2007 - An international research consortium today published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood.

as well as:

http://www.boston.com/news/glo.....ed/?page=1

The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.

Naturalists always say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certai