75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

So what? That's just science in action, checking, rechecking, searching for corrections, making them. How many times do you have to be told that? You're living in the scientific past, in Darwin's case 157 years in the past.

we agree, that's how we know the record did not match Darwinian predictions, you can argue with myself and and many scientists on that, I think Raup, curator of the Chicago field museum, was more than just any old paleontologist though.

So what? You're still living in the past.
No, not simple change ─ change mapped, described and explained. You're still living in the past.

not at all, I stopped believing in Darwinism years ago

Now you were about to tell me where species (&c) really come from. What's the answer?

I wrote you a good paragraph, you didn't read it?

 

[blü 2]

not at all, I stopped believing in Darwinism years ago

So you still believe in the theory of evolution. just not the 1859 version? About time!

I wrote you a good paragraph, you didn't read it?

I read it. It didn't answer my question. I asked you how, in your view, species, genera, classes, orders, kingdoms, &c, came into being. What's the answer?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you still believe in the theory of evolution. just not the 1859 version? About time!

Thanks, we're hoping you will join the rest of us us eventually!

I read it. It didn't answer my question. I asked you how, in your view, species, genera, classes, orders, kingdoms, &c, came into being. What's the answer?

To put it another way then

The same way space/time matter/energy came about, the various classes of galaxies and stars- great solar fusion reactors, the chemical elements required for life that they in turn produced..

all according to specific finely tuned information, instructions, predetermining where, how and when they would develop- (as opposed to mere natural selection of random mutations)- Most likely originating at the quantum level and manifesting somewhere in the lower hierarchies of the digital software code we refer to as DNA, quite possibly in the vast archives that until recently were dismissed as 'junk'

This has become increasingly clear in the last couple of decades scientifically, it's starting to among academia also, but they are notorious for lagging behind everyone else for a few decades

 

[blü 2]

T according to specific finely tuned information, instructions, predetermining where, how and when they would develop- (as opposed to mere natural selection of random mutations)-

So you assume intelligent entities do the designing, yes?

How many such entities are there?

Why do they bother? What's in it for them?

And, foremost, on the basis of what examinable evidence do you make these claims?

Do you have anything other than the ol' argument from incredulity?

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks, we're hoping you will join the rest of us us eventually!



To put it another way then

The same way space/time matter/energy came about, the various classes of galaxies and stars- great solar fusion reactors, the chemical elements required for life that they in turn produced..

all according to specific finely tuned information, instructions, predetermining where, how and when they would develop- (as opposed to mere natural selection of random mutations)- Most likely originating at the quantum level and manifesting somewhere in the lower hierarchies of the digital software code we refer to as DNA, quite possibly in the vast archives that until recently were dismissed as 'junk'

This has become increasingly clear in the last couple of decades scientifically, it's starting to among academia also, but they are notorious for lagging behind everyone else for a few decades

What evidence do you have that anything is happening at the quantum level in this? DNA is quite large compared to the quantum level, for example.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What evidence do you have that anything is happening at the quantum level in this? DNA is quite large compared to the quantum level, for example.

So is the universe!, but QM manifests itself in it's physical design,

as I said 'originating' at QM - which may be distinct from 'happening'- once created- DNA itself is obviously a vast enough information system - though QM may play an ongoing role also:- that's less clear but interesting possibility


A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation.
McFadden J1, Al-Khalili J.
Author information

Abstract
The principle that mutations occur randomly with respect to the direction of evolutionary change has been challenged by the phenomenon of adaptive mutations. There is currently no entirely satisfactory theory to account for how a cell can selectively mutate certain genes in response to environmental signals. However, spontaneous mutations are initiated by quantum events such as the shift of a single proton (hydrogen atom) from one site to an adjacent one. We consider here the wave function describing the quantum state of the genome as being in a coherent linear superposition of states describing both the shifted and unshifted protons. Quantum coherence will be destroyed by the process of decoherence in which the quantum state of the genome becomes correlated (entangled) with its surroundings. Using a very simple model we estimate the decoherence times for protons within DNA and demonstrate that quantum coherence may be maintained for biological time-scales. Interaction of the coherent genome wave function with environments containing utilisable substrate will induce rapid decoherence and thereby destroy the superposition of mutant and non-mutant states. We show that this accelerated rate of decoherence may significantly increase the rate of production of the mutated state.



(wiki)
In physical chemistry, the van der Waals forces, named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, are distance-dependent interactions between atoms or molecules. Unlike ionic or covalent bonds, these attractions are not a result of any chemical electronic bond, and they are comparatively weak and more susceptible to being perturbed. Van der Waals forces quickly vanish at longer distances between interacting molecules.

Van der Waals forces play a fundamental role in fields as diverse as supramolecular chemistry, structural biology, polymer science, nanotechnology, surface science, and condensed matter physics. Van der Waals forces also define many properties of organic compounds and molecular solids, including their solubility in polar and non-polar media.

^ just examples of QM interacting with biology- But the larger point is that the design information -one way or another- is preexisting for biology just as we found out it was for stars that produce elements needed for life, and cosmological structure in general- i.e. life merely continues by a similar information directed process, as opposed to the undirected one explicitly proposed by Darwinism

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you assume intelligent entities do the designing, yes?

personally, yes- I think this is the least improbable explanation for it, but not necessarily.

The main point is that biological development is an information directed process- just as physics and chemistry:

So It doesn't mean having to give up materialism per se- the information could technically still arise by chance. Sure, you may need an infinite probability machine to pull this off, but that's no leap of faith not already required for a multiverse randomly creating all of physics and chemistry is it?

How many such entities are there?

one

Why do they bother? What's in it for them?

why bother having kids? what's the greatest motivation for anything?

All you need is love Blue

And, foremost, on the basis of what examinable evidence do you make these claims?

Do you have anything other than the ol' argument from incredulity?

There are three main lines of evidence supporting the idea that biology does NOT diverge from the information driven process that supports it

The fossil record
Direct experimentation
Mathematical modelling

On this information having an intelligent source-

Well, Intelligent sources are the only verified means by which such hierarchical digital information systems are ever created. And arguably the only means by which anything can truly be created, free from an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.

But I believe this is as should be, a matter of personal faith ultimately

 

[Polymath257]

So is the universe!, but QM manifests itself in it's physical design,

as I said 'originating' at QM - which may be distinct from 'happening'- once created- DNA itself is obviously a vast enough information system - though QM may play an ongoing role also:- that's less clear but interesting possibility


A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation.
McFadden J1, Al-Khalili J.
Author information

Abstract
The principle that mutations occur randomly with respect to the direction of evolutionary change has been challenged by the phenomenon of adaptive mutations. There is currently no entirely satisfactory theory to account for how a cell can selectively mutate certain genes in response to environmental signals. However, spontaneous mutations are initiated by quantum events such as the shift of a single proton (hydrogen atom) from one site to an adjacent one. We consider here the wave function describing the quantum state of the genome as being in a coherent linear superposition of states describing both the shifted and unshifted protons. Quantum coherence will be destroyed by the process of decoherence in which the quantum state of the genome becomes correlated (entangled) with its surroundings. Using a very simple model we estimate the decoherence times for protons within DNA and demonstrate that quantum coherence may be maintained for biological time-scales. Interaction of the coherent genome wave function with environments containing utilisable substrate will induce rapid decoherence and thereby destroy the superposition of mutant and non-mutant states. We show that this accelerated rate of decoherence may significantly increase the rate of production of the mutated state.



(wiki)
In physical chemistry, the van der Waals forces, named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, are distance-dependent interactions between atoms or molecules. Unlike ionic or covalent bonds, these attractions are not a result of any chemical electronic bond, and they are comparatively weak and more susceptible to being perturbed. Van der Waals forces quickly vanish at longer distances between interacting molecules.

Van der Waals forces play a fundamental role in fields as diverse as supramolecular chemistry, structural biology, polymer science, nanotechnology, surface science, and condensed matter physics. Van der Waals forces also define many properties of organic compounds and molecular solids, including their solubility in polar and non-polar media.

^ just examples of QM interacting with biology- But the larger point is that the design information -one way or another- is preexisting for biology just as we found out it was for stars that produce elements needed for life, and cosmological structure in general- i.e. life merely continues by a similar information directed process, as opposed to the undirected one explicitly proposed by Darwinism

OK, so you are basically saying the laws of physics and chemistry were created by some intelligence to produce the stars, the DNA, etc. So what appears to be random really isn't, it was planned way ahead of time?

Hmmm...as long a agree that living things have changed over geological time and that the statistics on such changes are valid, etc, I am fine with that.

I don't find it helpful scientifically, but philosophically, go for it.

 

[blü 2]

The main point is that biological development is an information directed process- just as physics and chemistry:

The term 'information' in the physical sciences (leaving aside Shannon's 'information theory') simply means 'data, as far as I can tell. What do you say it means?

one

Why only one? If you're right, there are truly huge heaps of data out there to be processed before use.

why bother having kids? what's the greatest motivation for anything?

No, it's a serious question ─ why on earth go to so much bother? Especially since no one will ever look at 99.999999999999999999% of it ─ or less.

There are three main lines of evidence supporting the idea that biology does NOT diverge from the information driven process that supports it

So more than ever we need your definition of 'information' on the table here, since what you say isn't true of data as such.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK, so you are basically saying the laws of physics and chemistry were created by some intelligence to produce the stars, the DNA, etc. So what appears to be random really isn't, it was planned way ahead of time?


Hmmm...as long a agree that living things have changed over geological time and that the statistics on such changes are valid, etc, I am fine with that.

I don't find it helpful scientifically, but philosophically, go for it.

as above, I'm saying biological forms are predetermined just like everything else, by preexisting information yes, where that info came from is another question-

not scientifically helpful? moving beyond classical physics, where simple laws + random interaction explained everything.. to understanding the underlying information, subatomic physics- was quite helpful,

it gave us insight, and many practical applications, we do still have some major unsolved biological problems, specifically regarding how DNA is copied/ mutated, right?

likewise with physics, there are dangerous applications also

"the statistics on such changes are valid"

It's nice to find some common ground, but this is a grey area! much of the record, statistics, understanding of natural history has been distorted through a Darwinian lens, to make it appear far more Darwinian than it really is (As Raup explicitly pointed out) I don't consider this too scientifically helpful..

otherwise maybe we are not a million miles apart!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it's a serious question ─ why on earth go to so much bother? Especially since no one will ever look at 99.999999999999999999% of it ─ or less.
So more than ever we need your definition of 'information' on the table here, since what you say isn't true of data as such.

serious answer, 'motivation' is a real phenomena, we are using it right now, it can explain things natural processes never can, because it can act in direct anticipation of future events, correct?

I'm no angel, but I think I can say love has motivated me in life more than anything else, how about you?

no one will ever look at 99.999999999999999999% of it ─ or less.

ever played the game minecraft? this applies to the player in the virtual world, which is practically infinite... by your rationale the game must have spontaneously written itself for no particular reason? Because no intelligent designer would build it this way?

They did, because, just like our universe, it's vast scale is determined by the math, the algorithms, not a budget, not the 'effort' of the creator


So if for the same 'price', you can have a minimalist 'space saver' Truman dome universe... or a vast awe inspiring cosmos to draw people's imagination up and away from themselves..

I know which I would chose, so I would think the former would be more consistent with a meaningless accident

So more than ever we need your definition of 'information' on the table here, since what you say isn't true of data as such.

So it's specified, functional information as opposed to Shannon information- and we know what that looks like in the information age

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal."

Richard Dawkins

 

[ImmortalFlame]

as above, I'm saying biological forms are predetermined just like everything else, by preexisting information yes, where that info came from is another question-

So you believe in some form of theistic evolution then, yes?

not scientifically helpful? moving beyond classical physics, where simple laws + random interaction explained everything.. to understanding the underlying information, subatomic physics- was quite helpful, it gave us insight, and many practical applications, we do still have some major unsolved biological problems, specifically regarding how DNA is copied/ mutated, right?

How does that compare with your assertion? The "moving beyond" was motivated by evidence, experiment and testing. What can we do to test your idea of an "underlying cause" and what benefits can research into it give us? How does asserting said underlying cause, without testability or evidence, increase our overall understanding?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So it's specified, functional information as opposed to Shannon information- and we know what that looks like in the information age

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal."

Richard Dawkins

Key word: "like".

 

[Polymath257]

as above, I'm saying biological forms are predetermined just like everything else, by preexisting information yes, where that info came from is another question-

not scientifically helpful? moving beyond classical physics, where simple laws + random interaction explained everything.. to understanding the underlying information, subatomic physics- was quite helpful,

You have *postulated* underlying information, but not given any evidence of such. The facts still support mutations that are not directed, but are random in most situations (excluding some evidence for Lamarckian evolution in some bacteria).

it gave us insight, and many practical applications, we do still have some major unsolved biological problems, specifically regarding how DNA is copied/ mutated, right?

Not really. DNA is copied through processes that we understand fairly well (although the control of those processes is less well understood). Mutation happens for a wide variety of reasons, usually NOT pre-programmed.

likewise with physics, there are dangerous applications also

??

"the statistics on such changes are valid"

It's nice to find some common ground, but this is a grey area! much of the record, statistics, understanding of natural history has been distorted through a Darwinian lens, to make it appear far more Darwinian than it really is (As Raup explicitly pointed out) I don't consider this too scientifically helpful..

otherwise maybe we are not a million miles apart!

On the contrary, the randomness of mutations can and has been tested. The randomness of changes in the fossil record has also. In both cases, the observations are consistent with mutations that are not pre-programmed. There is very limited evidence in some situations where the mutation rate can change (mostly because repair mechanisms are suppressed) in certain environments.

 

[blü 2]

serious answer, 'motivation' is a real phenomena, we are using it right now, it can explain things natural processes never can, because it can act in direct anticipation of future events, correct?

So there's one intelligent designer and ─ you mean the Abrahamic god, no? so let's say 'he' ─ about 14 bn years ago designed a universe which has maybe 10^20-22 stars and maybe ten times that in planets, and so far as we know only one of those planets has intelligent life (and so far as we know, this happened as a result of the ordinary processes of nature) and H sap sap didn't exist until maybe as much as 200,000 years ago (about the last 0.00001% of that time), and maybe as little as 70,000 years ago (about the last 0.000005%).

So you won't argue when I suggest that one of the most conspicuous qualities of such a being is jaw-dropping inefficiency?

As for love, this being so loves humans that throughout history he's regularly wiped them out in huge numbers with drought, famine, flood, earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, and of course malaria, bubonic plague, cholera, AIDS, cancer and so on and so on. Would you then argue that one of this being's qualities is benevolence? Or do you think benevolence and altruism are human qualities, byproducts of H sap sap being gregarious?

Do you think it's a problem that the Abrahamic god didn't exist until about 3500 years ago? And that he still isn't real ─ has no objective existence, not even a definition as a real being ─ and is simply one of earth's uncountable numbers and kinds of imaginary beings?

ever played the game minecraft? this applies to the player in the virtual world, which is practically infinite... by your rationale the game must have spontaneously written itself for no particular reason? Because no intelligent designer would build it this way?

Does Minecraft begin 14 billion years ago with a great deal of hydrogen and helium and a bit of lithium? Does it have a first generation of stars that by natural processes create the heavier elements and scatter them into space by the nova process? Does it have, say, 10^23 planets each with billions of different environments in which biochemistry might become active biochemistry, self-reproducing life? Does it include evolution on one such planet across 3.5 billion years or more?

None of which required a designer?

So it's specified, functional information as opposed to Shannon information- and we know what that looks like in the information age

No, you still haven't defined what you mean by 'information'. Let me put it this way: what objective test will let me distinguish this 'information' from what otherwise would be data?

 

[John53]

The interesting part of this thread for me is that it is perfectly OK to question evolution and Darwin's findings. The same can't be said for creationism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've seen it, and like most people, I'm not too impressed-

but I'm interested in what you find so impressive

How about just one part, what line of evidence do you personally find most compelling and why?

Tell you what: because I have been at so many pains to answer your questions, but refuse to retype all of the science around evolution here for you to ignore, I'll ask you to do this first:

Tell me what it is you actually understand about the Theory of Evolution, then show me the parts that leave you unimpressed (and please be so kind as to say why). When you do that, I'll respond. But until then, I've already responded more, and with more data, than you ever have -- since you do absolutely nothing except say, "I'm unimpressed." At this juncture, I conceive that you are unimpressed for no more complicated reason than that you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND it.

Show me your understanding, and I'll respond.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The paper I directly quoted was called 'conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' I wouldn't characterize Raup's work as ' propaganda' He was a very well respected scientist, curator of the Chicago Field museum

I used several quotes from it to highlight several conflicts between.. Darwin and Paleontology

I can't control any other context you are putting this in


From a Victorian starting point in the state of the fossil record, Darwinists predicted that the apparent gaps, jumps, periods of stasis would be smoothed out over time, to show the slow steady incremental changes that Darwin himself saw as crucial to the theory

Skeptics predicted that these characteristics were true reflections of the record, and would only become better establish as the fossil record was expanded.

Remind me which prediction panned out?


Once again this does not entirely destroy Darwinism by itself, though it creates a lot of problems to try to solve. - and if science is to progress we at least have to acknowledge them. There is a pop-science perception Raup references, that Darwinism is somehow very well supported scientifically- rather it is very popular academically,. There some 'pure fiction' in the text books as he puts it, that anyone interested in science should want exposed.

You miss my point. I'm not characterizing Raup's work as propaganda. It is how his work is taken out of context and twisted by creationists to mean something it doesn't mean that I'm calling propaganda.

I agree you can't control how others misquote Raup, but you shouldn't follow them either.

So, you are saying that the fossil record has not improved to show that some evolution occurs at a slow steady rate? Clearly there is evidence that it does, but also evidence that the rate is not the same for every lineage or even within specific lineages. The bottom line is that Raup did not claim that evolution doesn't occur or that his criticism refutes evolution. I'm still not clear that you aren't trying to show that his work did say that.

Even under the much greater bulk of a fossil record we have compared to 150 years ago, there are still gaps in it all along the history of life on earth. Can you say with great confidence that some of what we are missing wouldn't fill in and show a slow, steady, incremental change? If we took the periods of stasis that are indicated by the fossil record and zoomed into them, I don't think it would be unlikely to find that slow changes occurred even then, just much smaller changes. The fact that the changes I would expect are much smaller in scale and may include changes that defy preservation would be an artifact making it difficult to scrutinize. Again evolution is taking place. The issue is how rapidly from a geological time frame and not whether evolution is occurring at all.

It creates issues of detail to resolve, but comes no where close to providing a backbreaking refutation or even a muscle cramp for the theory of evolution. These have been acknowledged. The problem isn't one of acknowledgement. It is one of people with an agenda making it something it isn't. Using the slow pace at which current scientific understanding enters into textbooks is using an artifact to support your position that science ignores the evidence and goes with some consensus version of evolution. Scientists on the cutting edge may have the best position to understand a particular aspect of science, but you won't find that in a textbook until it has been well scrutinized and evaluated. And you scoff at artifacts too. How enlightening.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Tell you what: because I have been at so many pains to answer your questions, but refuse to retype all of the science around evolution here for you to ignore, I'll ask you to do this first:

Tell me what it is you actually understand about the Theory of Evolution, then show me the parts that leave you unimpressed (and please be so kind as to say why). When you do that, I'll respond. But until then, I've already responded more, and with more data, than you ever have -- since you do absolutely nothing except say, "I'm unimpressed." At this juncture, I conceive that you are unimpressed for no more complicated reason than that you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND it.

Show me your understanding, and I'll respond.

I'd be interesting in seeing what he understands about it too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact that an intelligent scientist mixed chemicals and got a reaction doesn't mean that it takes an intelligence for those chemicals to be mixed and react.

An often repeated claim that makes no sense to me.

You're on staff now? Congratulations. They found an excellent and very knowledgeable person for the role.