Like throwing a wad of chewing gum into a finely tuned machine, it’s relatively easy to clog a systemAs I’ve shown previously, this is nonsense. We are talking about a coordinated binding to a specific acceptor site. Nor should there be a blanket ban of these types of protein binding sites anyway, a binding site is a binding site, you still need to develop the same specific holes and knobs, and electrostatic charges to get specific, high affinity binding, whether the binding sites results in the formation of a molecular machine or a receptor blocker. The development of the binding sites uses identical processes no matter what the downstream outcome. Again, since your own example is the single point mutation in haemoglobin, which just leads to it gluging up, you claim that a specific multisite mutation which targets a multimeric complex to the specific, defined cellular site is not a valid binding site rings rather hollow. What did you expect a virus would do anyway? HIV-1 is a cut down parasite with 9 genes (HIV-2 has 10, there is a new gene in HIV-2 not present in SIV cpz due to duplication and subsequent mutation of the Vpr gene, and has novel binding targets and functions that Vpr does not. This invalidates your statement on page 139 that “No gene duplication has occurred leading to a new function”). The entire reason for most of these proteins is to bind to cellular proteins (that’s why parasites such as viruses are so dramatically simplified, they trick the bodies own cellular machinery. By defacto ruling out of court viral protein-cellular protein interactions for reasons that don’t make any sense in the light of your own arguments and examples, you have ruled out 99% of the potential evolution of these viral proteins. But even here you are inconsistent; on page 139 you lament that the HIV virus has not developed any new cell surface binding sites. This is a viral-protein-cellular protein binding site, but it seems to count when you can’t find an example. But unfortunately you missed the development of CXCR4 coreceptor binding. This can happen within the course of a single infection. The viral receptor binding protein gp120 mutates and switches from binding the CCR5 coreceptor to the CXCR4 coreceptor (Salemi et al., 2007). All in the duration of one infection, again with the absence of any Soros uplift fleet. Once more your references fail you Dr. Behe, you cite reference 19 (Demma et al., 2006) as evidence that HIV has not developed the ability to bind to other receptors and enter new cellular hosts. Yet Demma et al., is not about HIV, it is about how mutations in SIV proteins such as env allow them to bind to new targets, allowing them to bind to receptors on new species cells. This is almost exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Of course, you dismiss this as not an example of a major biochemical novelty, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about proteins sticking together; your claim is that they can’t easily develop this capacity, irrespective of what the functional consequences are (what major biochemical novelty occurs in chloroquine resistance?). Again, this line of argument is completely blown away by your own haemoglobin S example. To conclude, contrary to you claims that zero binding sites have developed in HIV, we can point to several, in Vpu alone that conform to your own criteria. When Ms Smith pointed this out to you, you ignored her core argument and replied with misdirection and misinformation. I sincerely hope that this time around you will fairly represent her arguments. Comparing someone to the cast of "Mean Girls" is annoying, but by completely avoiding the core argument, and dragging in nonsequiters is the worst disrespect of all. However, this form of response, where you write on a blog I can’t post too, and I write on a blog you won’t post too, is very limiting. I hereby invite you to debate on a neutral site where there will be minimal distraction. I have created the “The VPU debate” weblog site, and I invite you to be a co-registrant. There we can concentrate on the mutations of Vpu and how they relate to your claims. I look forward to seeing you there.
Yours sincerely
A featherless biped named Ian Musgrave[2,3] [1] This is a feature of a number of the references you cite, they are either irrelevant to your point, or don’t actually claim what you say they claim. Looking at your reference 21 (Wang 2002) again, this is supposed to support the claim that no new viral binding proteins have developed, but it is actually about determinants of viral surface binding. Your commentary on this paper doesn’t relate it to the claim it is supposed to support, but claims that viral protein binding only has to be weak and…well its not clear what you are trying to get at, here (certainly not the claim that there are now new HIV binding sites), probably that because only weak binding is needed you can find binding sites easily. Unfortunately for you, the HIV affinity for CD4 is 10 nM, what biologists consider high affinity binding, which makes your argument irrelevant.[2] Strictly speaking, I'm a senior lecturer, not a professor. Although the Australia senior lecturer classification is roughly equivalent to a US professor position, the real professors here would get annoyed if I get an undeserved professor designation.
[3] Boring disclaimer: The University of Adelaide and I have a deal, they don't speak for me, I don't speak for them, so my views are mine alone, not official University views (like I would have that power, yeah)References:
Bell CM, et al., Molecular Characterization of the HIV Type 1 Subtype C Accessory Genes vif, vpr, and vpu. AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses. 2007, 23(2): 322-330.
Demma LJ, et al., (2005) SIVsm quasispecies adaptation to a new simian host. PLoS Pathog. Sep;1(1):e3. Epub 2005 Sep 30.
Ewart GD, Sutherland T, Gage PW, Cox GB (1996) The Vpu protein of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 forms cation-selective ion channels. J Virol 70: 7108–7115.
Hill SM, et al., (2007) Modulation of the severe CD4+ T-cell loss caused by a pathogenic simian–human immunodeficiency virus by replacement of the subtype B vpu with the vpu from a subtype C HIV-1 clinical isolate. Virology, In press.
Goujon, C et al., (2007) SIVSM/HIV-2 Vpx proteins promote retroviral escape from a proteasome-dependent restriction pathway present in human dendritic cells Retrovirology, 4:2
Mehnert T, et al., Biophysical characterization of Vpu from HIV-1 suggests a channel-pore dualism. Proteins. 2007 Oct 1; doi: 10.1002/prot.21642.
Paul et al. (1998) Mutational Analysis of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Vpu Transmembrane Domain That Promotes the Enhanced Release of Virus-Like Particles from the Plasma Membrane of Mammalian Cells. J Virol, 72 (2): 1270.
Pacyniak E, et al., (2005) Identification of a region within the cytoplasmic domain of the subtype B Vpu protein of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) that is responsible for retention in the Golgi complex and its absence in the Vpu protein from a subtype C HIV-1. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. May;21(5):379-94.
Salemi M, et al., (2007) Phylodynamics of HIV-1 in Lymphoid and Non-Lymphoid Tissues Reveals a Central Role for the Thymus in Emergence of CXCR4-Using Quasispecies. PLoS ONE. Sep 26;2(9):e950.
Wang J. (2002) Protein recognition by cell surface receptors: physiological receptors versus virus interactions. Trends Biochem Sci. Mar;27(3):122-6.
138 Comments
Toni Petrina · 12 November 2007
Excellent post although I feel that it may be too technical and therefore Behe will dismiss it in similar fashion as (IIRC) Sean Carroll's post. "He uses too many technical terms and will confuse you but look, here is a simple explanation: goddidit. Don't waste your time on science, it makes your head hurt".
ERV · 12 November 2007
ERV · 12 November 2007
Toni-- ...too technical...
Already nipped that at the bud.
Thanks again, Ian :)
JGB · 12 November 2007
Is there a place for a good current timeline for the evolution of HIV? I haven't really paid any attention to the issue for quite sometime and it appears reading through the article that if HIV entered humans in the 20's the story has changed quite a bit.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Though I am no expert in HIV.
It seems to me, this is only an example of "increased complexity" of trench warfare:
If this version of evolution were true; Would not "survival of the fittest" belong to the virus/micro-organism with the greatest "mutational firepower" and Higher organism would constantly be cut down, before they even had any chance to develop meaningful complexity? By these standards you propose, there would be miniature mutant warriors constantly attacking any higher organism to come along and thus constantly "out evolving them" into oblivion?
Thus if this type of trench warfare evolution is consistently true for viruses, then higher organisms of necessity can't exist for any meaningful long period of time.
No I don't see the proof, I believe Behe's exacting definition for "building up complexity" is done precisely because of this insurmountable problem of throwing wads of gum into finely tuned machinery instead of building it up.
TomS · 12 November 2007
Just an observation - not meant as criticism or complaint:
To discuss scientific matters with a creationist is to run the risk of giving the appearance that the creationists desire. That there is a scientific controversy about creationism. That there is something of substance to creationism. That there is a "theory of creationism".
Whatever the results of scientific research, the creationists can always say that "that's the way that it was designed".
I understand that scientists, being scientists, are interested in science, and enjoy the opportunity to tell others about science.
I fear that the creationists could play to that, and get scientists to talk about their science.
But, to the non-scientific observer, it has the appearance as if the creationists are saying something scientific. The observer could come away with this impression:
Maybe the creationist is wrong on some subtle point of science, but even the evolutionist recognizes that it is scientific. Why exclude the students from exposure to this scientific controversy?
dhogaza · 12 November 2007
PvM · 12 November 2007
mark · 12 November 2007
Though I am no expert in HIV, or evolution, I will pontificate on these subjects anyway because otherwise my favorite superstition may not be supported when challenged by those who are experts.
Frank J · 12 November 2007
Stephen Wells · 12 November 2007
Is it possible that Behe honestly doesn't think that these are examples of evolution, because he's already certain that these changes were intelligently designed? I was trying to understand how he can possibly make the claims he does without his head exploding. Maybe he's genuinely certain that no new binding sites have evolved in HIV, because the voices in his head already told him that the changes you guys are pointing out are in fact evidence of the Hidden Hand of Yahweh/Satan/Shiva/Beelzebub/Apollo in the affairs of mankind.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
PvM you stated:
In spite of the evidence shown to you by Ms Smith and Ian Musgrave. What is your excuse for your continued refusal to accept these facts?
These Facts?
Yet even Abbie Smith states:
Again, since your own example is the single point mutation in haemoglobin, which just leads to it gluging up, you claim that a specific multisite mutation which targets a multimeric complex to the specific, defined cellular site is not a valid binding site rings rather hollow.
What did you expect a virus would do anyway?
Excellent question Abbie.
Well, what do we expect it to do anyway? As stated before, the examples you cite are excellent examples of trench warfare. Trench warfare that is thoroughly antagonistic to the bigger evolutionary picture of building finely crafted, astonishingly complex, multi tiered, molecular systems.
To give you an idea of what we expect to see,indeed what evolution itself is absolutely required to produce, to be proven true, here is a quote from Gpuccio on a UD thread; (commenting on evolutions failed chance to strut its almighty stuff in malaria)
So, we have where a very strong environmental challenge has emerged, which is exactly what is supposed to be a very strong motivation for evolution in a Darwinian scenario. So, the point is not if the parasite in those years has started to evolve some occult difference, but rather why it has not evolved any complex and non trivial adaptation to chloroquine, in the presence of such a strong selective force, and with so many reproductive cycles available. Why not a “cloroquinase”, or some equivalent mechanism, for instance? Why not a complex new pathway, let’s say 3 or 4 proteins in cascade whose purpose could be to metabolize the dr^ug, or to couple it to some molecule to make it ineffective. Why not new cellular functions which may allow the parasite’s survival in the presence of choroquine? Why not a deeply renovated parasite, much more dangerous than its ancestor?
That is the kind of complexity we expect (scientifically require) to see building up by totally natural processes if evolution is to be proven true. Indeed, to Quote DaveScot,
P.falciparum replicating billions of trillions of times in the past few decades represents the largest search to date for a “black swan”. This is orders of magnitude more replications than took place in the evolution of reptiles to mammals wherein there are many exceedingly complex biological systems that separate them. If P.falciparum had been seen generating any complex biological systems such as those that distinguish mammals from reptiles then it would have falsified the ID hypothesis. None were observed. This doesn’t prove ID but it certainly lends strong support to it. All perfectly scientific.
So there you have it:
A few other things that might help prove evolution true?
How about showing a new species that has emerged since man suddenly appeared in the fossil record, that can not be traced back to trivial reproductive isolation that is due to Genetic Entropy?
Or how about "evolving" any micro-organism into any other micro-organism by purely material processes?
How about producing a coherent beneficial mutation study that doesn't fall apart on examination of definition of fitness?
Finch Beaks and spotted moths may have sold you on the lie of evolution, but I want to see some almighty transmutation before I believe that pigs may someday fly!
Soren · 12 November 2007
bornagain77:
You are dismissing the fact that a virus that quickly kills its host is less successful than a virus that can coexist with its host.
If you get a virus that kills you in 2 days, making you very sick in 12 hours, you are'nt going to expose many people to the virus.
If you get a virus that doesn't kill you, but just rides along with you (or just slightly increases the chance of you experience sickness, like HPV), then the virus will be spread more, and hence be more successful. Remember you do not win by killing your host, but by spreading your genome.
That is why parasites that kill you quickly will be less of an issue on a large scale of things than (relatively) slow killers like HIV.
Soren · 12 November 2007
to bornagain77:
Why do you insist on declaring that the parasite should evolve to be more dangerous? Why would it be in the interest of the parasite to be more dangerous?
Killing of your host is a bad strategy for survival!
David Stanton · 12 November 2007
Born again wrote:
"How about producing a coherent beneficial mutation study that doesn’t fall apart on examination of definition of fitness?"
I recommend that you read the thread on the fitness distribution of beneficial mutations. You will find that beneficial mutations occur and that they have a distribution of fitness values.
You have somehow gotten the idea that evolution must produce complex organisms and that they must survive. That is not necessary at all. Complex organisms did evolve and they may survive or they may not. The human race could indeed be wiped out by HIV or MRSA or anything else. That is because evolution has no goals or desires and no intelligent design.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Soren you stated;
Killing of your host is a bad strategy for survival!
That is a very interesting comment of yours, in fact I read somewhere where viruses are very important in helping bacteria (and other species) survive. They produce a kind of elaborate communication network of some kind for the bacteria (I believe it is some kind of a community driven environmental sensor network for the bacteria)...Thus viruses seem to have an inherent and exact purpose for being exactly what they are, to allow the bacteria to more precisely coordinate and accomplish there specific functions in the environments they find themselves in.
Contrary to evolutionary thought is there symbiotic purpose found for bacteria for future life to appear ?
To the dismay of evolutionists, Yes there is!
From 3.8 to .6 billion years ago photosynthetic bacteria, and to a lesser degree sulfate-reducing bacteria, ted the geologic and fossil record (that’s over 80% of the entire time life has existed on earth). The geologic and fossil record also reveals that during this time a large portion of these very first bacterial life-forms lived in complex symbiotic (mutually beneficial) colonies called Stromatolites. Stromatolites are rock like structures that the photo-synthetic bacteria built up over many years (much like coral reefs are slowly built up over many years by the tiny creatures called corals). Although Stromatolites are not nearly as widespread as they once were, they are still around today in a few sparse places like Shark’s Bay Australia. Contrary to what naturalistic thought would expect, these very first photosynthetic bacteria scientists find in the geologic and fossil record are shown to have been preparing the earth for more advanced life to appear from the very start of their existence by reducing the greenhouse gases of earth’s early atmosphere and producing the necessary oxygen for higher life-forms to exist. Photosynthetic bacteria slowly built the oxygen up in the earth’s atmosphere by removing the carbon-dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere; separated the carbon from the oxygen; then released the oxygen back into the atmosphere (and into the earth’s ocean & crust) while they retained the carbon. Interestingly, the gradual removal of greenhouse gases corresponds exactly to the gradual 15% increase of light and heat coming from the sun during that time (Ross; PhD. Astrophysics; Creation as Science 2006). This “lucky” correspondence of the slow increase of heat from the sun with the same perfectly timed slow removal of greenhouse gases from the earth’s atmosphere was absolutely necessary for the bacteria to continue to live to do their work of preparing the earth for more advanced life to appear. Bacteria obviously depended on the temperature of the earth to remain relatively stable during the billions of years they prepared the earth for higher life forms to appear. More interesting still, the byproducts of greenhouse gas removal by these early bacteria are limestone, marble, gypsum, phosphates, sand, and to a lesser extent, coal, oil and natural gas (note; though some coal, oil and natural gas are from this early era of bacterial life, most coal, oil and natural gas deposits originated on earth after the Cambrian explosion of higher life forms some 540 million years ago). These natural resources produced by these early photosynthetic bacteria are very useful to modern civilizations. Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing natural resources that would be of benefit to modern man, the sulfate-reducing bacteria were also producing their own natural resources that would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by “detoxifying” the primeval earth and oceans of “poisonous” levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ore deposits (iron, zinc, magnesium, lead etc.. etc..). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these metals in the ecosystem that are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them, yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. Needless to say, the metal ores deposited by these sulfate-reducing bacteria in the early history of the earth’s geologic record are indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to modern civilization. Yet even more evidence has been found tying other early types of bacterial life to the anthropic hypothesis. Many different types of bacteria in earths early history lived in complex symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationships in what are called cryptogamic colonies on the earths primeval continents. These colonies “dramatically” transformed the “primeval land” into “nutrient filled soils” that were receptive for future advanced vegetation to appear. Naturalism has no answers for why all these different bacterial types and colonies found in the geologic and fossil record would start working in precise concert with each other preparing the earth for future life to appear. -// Since oxygen readily reacts and bonds with almost all of the solid elements making up the earth itself, it took photosynthetic bacteria over 3 billion years before the earth’s crust and mantle was saturated with enough oxygen to allow an excess of oxygen to be built up in the atmosphere. Once this was accomplished, higher life forms could finally be introduced on earth. Moreover, scientists find the rise in oxygen percentages in the geologic record to correspond exactly to the sudden appearance of large animals in the fossil record that depended on those particular percentages of oxygen. The geologic record shows a 10% oxygen level at the time of the Cambrian explosion of higher life-forms in the fossil record some 540 million years ago. The geologic record also shows a strange and very quick rise from the 17% oxygen level, of 50 million years ago, to a 23% oxygen level 40 million years ago (Falkowski 2005)). This strange rise in oxygen levels corresponds exactly to the appearance of large mammals in the fossil record who depend on high oxygen levels. Interestingly, for the last 10 million years the oxygen percentage has been holding steady around 21%. 21% happens to be the exact percentage that is of maximum biological utility for humans to exist. If the oxygen level were only a few percentage lower, large mammals would become severely hampered in their ability to metabolize energy; if only three to four percentage higher, there would be uncontrollable outbreaks of fire across the land. Because of this basic chemical requirement of photosynthetic bacterial life establishing and helping maintain the proper oxygen levels for higher life forms on any earth-like planet, this gives us further reason to believe the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support intelligent life in this universe. All these preliminary studies of early life on earth fall right in line with the anthropic hypothesis and have no explanation from any naturalistic theory based on blind chance as to why the very first bacterial life found in the fossil record would suddenly, from the very start of their appearance on earth, start working in precise harmony with each other to prepare the earth for future life to appear. Nor can naturalism explain why, once the bacteria had helped prepare the earth for higher life forms, they continue to work in precise harmony with each other to help maintain the proper balanced conditions that are of primary benefit for the complex life that is above them.
Is ESP part of current evolutionary theory?
Better go back to the drawing board guys!
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
off topic of interest to site:
China pandas forced to migrate for food
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_re_as/china_pandas
Frank J · 12 November 2007
Wolfhound · 12 November 2007
Nice C&P of the crap you previously posted at Uncommon Descent on 9/22/07. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-in-the-light-of-intelligent-design-new-entries/ Don't you have anything new to say?
Just to remind you, "Poof! Goddidit!" isn't science.
Do carry on.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Wolfhound,
I do take issue to you, for you declaring the materialistic philosophy superior to the Theistic philosophy prior to investigation!
Just to remind you, Poof! dirt and chance did it!, isn't science either.
JimV · 12 November 2007
I would like to thank Dr. Musgrave for an excellent post, but also offer some unsolicited advice. This was actually a very mild example, but in my opinion the less snarky the reply the better. Behe's "Mean Girls" reference was hardly worth mentioning, especially seeing as it came in response to some snarky stuff from ERV. I actually thought that was the most justified part of Behe's response. Humor is okay, but unless it seems to carry some underlying sense of compassion for the victim (as in, there but for the grace of there being no god go I), it can be a divisive tactic. I guess this message is more for ERV than for Dr. Musgrave, but it has been bothering me about this particular debate. I know, "they deserve it," but that has never seemed a great reason to me (remembering what Gandalf said).
Another unsolicited thought which this post and the above comments have sparked, is that the "chewing gum" and "trench warfare" models would make good essay questions for an Evolution 101 quiz. (Explain the fallacies in a few sentences.)
David Stanton · 12 November 2007
Born again,
Perhaps you did not read my post. Once again, evolution has not goals, no needs, no ESP. Just ask the anaerobic bacteria if there was a grand design that insured that aerobic bacteria would evolve and fluorish. I am sure the response would be much different. In the evolutionary game there are winners and losers, but as with human history, the losers don't get to write the textbooks. How strange indeed that the rise in oxygen levels coincided with the evolution of animals who could take advantage of it. This is only evidence of ESP if there is some reason why such animals must have evolved and there is not. Anthropomorphism ain't just a river in Africa either.
FollowTheGourd · 12 November 2007
" bornagain77 said:
Soren you stated;
Killing of your host is a bad strategy for survival!
That is a very interesting comment of yours,"
... so I'm going to ignore it and change the subject by cutting and pasting in some utter anthropomorphic gibberish because I don't understand that evolution doesn't have humans as its goal.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Wolfhound,
I don't mean to digress to far from the topic "Edge of Evolution" and HIV
But to further elaborate on your blanket accusation:
Just to remind you, “Poof! Goddidit!” isn’t science.
Is it even possible for the spiritual to interact with the material in a tangible way that can be detected scientifically?
I presume you will say no prior to investigation
Yet, To the dismay of materialists, Yes it is!
Here is a article I recently wrote showing how spirit and material interact.
What is Truth?
To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” as well as “I am the TRUTH, the way, and the life.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock.
Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real. A blind man in a darkened cave would feel the rock hitting his head just as well as a sighted man who saw the rock coming. The rock is real and its reality is not dependent on our observation. Having stated the obvious lets look at what the rock is actually made of.
A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth. From Einstein’s’ famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (solids, liquids and gases) of the universe is made of energy. This energy is “woven” by various forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of atom . This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle” of every atom in the trillions upon trillions of atoms in the rock. Woven energy is the “substance” of the rock. It is what gives the rock its physicality of being solid. Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the rock that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the universal constants that govern the energy and force of the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place.
Is truth independent and nt of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and force are always subject to what truth tells them they can and cannot do. That is to say, the rock cannot exist without truth yet truth can exist without the rock. Energy and force must obey the truth that is above them or else it can’t possibly exist. Since truth dictates what energy and/or force can or cannot do, truth tes energy and force. Energy and force do not te truth. If all energy and/or force stopped existing the truth that ruled the energy and force in the rock would still be logically true. Thus, truth is eternal. The logical truth existed before the rock existed. The logical truth exists while the rock exists. The logical truth will exist after the rock is long gone. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent. The truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times. It has been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically “real” (wave collapse of entangled electron) in any part of the universe this “information of reality” is instantaneously communicated everywhere in the universe. Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal awareness gives truth a vital characteristic of being omniscient. This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even gravity happen to be subject to. This scientific proof of quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated to be the “active” nt component of this universe. Truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe.
Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (it knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe); and Truth is active” (it is aware of everything that is happening and instantaneously makes appropriate adjustments wherever needed in the universe). Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and active are some of the very characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, by the strict rules of logic this means spiritual truth emanates from God.
Frank J · 12 November 2007
Blake Stacey · 12 November 2007
Extra bonus points for the Uplift reference.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
David and Follow,
If evolution has no goals, your host is a very bad thing and symbiotic relationship is a very good thing, then why should me showing the fact that symbiotic bacteria working in precise harmony for the future benefit of higher organisms be excluded from consideration as Theologically significant?
Dave, the accelerated (and superior) metabolism of mammals depends on oxygen,,,Do you know any other element to efficiently metabolize energy with?
Albatrossity · 12 November 2007
Dear BA77/Philip Cunningham
I am disappointed to see you trolling this thread when you left so many unanswered questions on the single comment thread still open on Behe's Amazon blog. I can't say that I am surprised by these drive-by drivel tactics, but I am still hopeful that you can head back over there and pick up the pieces of your shattered arguments about whales and such. Your inability to stick to an argument is especially hilarious in light of your recent comment at UD, where you modestly patted yourself on the back thusly - "What is extremely funny is that even though, I should not be able to so easily refute such high level critics of ID, I do so (albeit as you have pointed out, rather clumsily) with relative ease."
They must have different standards over there; I have yet to see you "refute" anything except for your own inane arguments, when you can't remember the implications of something that you said in your previous comment.
ERV · 12 November 2007
Flint · 12 November 2007
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Among other things, mammals, and all other organisms that have aerobic metabolisms, do not utilize elemental oxygen for aerobic metabolism. Furthermore, I take it that you are unaware of anaerobic metabolism in mammals.
snaxalotl · 12 November 2007
FollowTheGourd · 12 November 2007
"is there a single word for wrongness and smugness?"
there's a 2 word phrase:
"born again"
Frank J · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Flint,
Finding purpose is not a hit or miss deal with science and is not presumed with materialism. Yet, Purpose is found from the every corner of science! From the anthropic principle having precise values for universal constants, to the special theory of relativity showing that a physical reality of a eternal timeless dimension does in fact exist, to the privileged planet principle, to the complex symbiotic relationships of bacteria that allow higher life to be possible, to the stunning complexity of "simple" life itself,,,EVERYWHERE purpose and stunning interrelated complexity is found. This is NOT a prior presumption of any materialistic conjecture, but only finds fulfillment in scientific prediction in the beliefs predicated on the Theistic philosophy!
Erasmus, FCD · 12 November 2007
Hey bornagain.
you shouldn't have quit drinking. you're a little loony.
bornagain77b · 12 November 2007
Stanton,
Please prove your assertion that any other form of metabolism is superior to oxygen metabolism.
Toni Petrina · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 you do realize that your large c/p post begs the question? Also, all those coincidences can be and are naturally explained without resorting to unproven statements.
Also, back at amazon comments your 12 arguments against materialism and in favor of theism are bunch of non sequitors. Do you know what prediction means? Dirt and chance are science because they are constrained by nature and they leave fingerprints all around. OTOH, your designer has no constraints (he made life in place that can't support it naturally) and he leaves no fingerprints. What is even worse, he makes it look like evolution happened.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Toni,
How in the world do you get that?
The Cambrian Explosion by itself stresses the credibility of materialism to the breaking point!
Case in point:
The Biological Big Bang for the major transitions in evolution:
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21
Scott Hatfield, OM · 12 November 2007
bornagain77:
Scott Hatfield here. I'm something of a regular at PZ Myers' site and a real enthusiast for evolution. I'm also a believer, and since you seem like a sincere guy with an interest in evolution, let me take you up on some of the questions you posed, keeping in mind that by definition I don't have any sort of anti-religious agenda. . .
First, you haven't shown that symbiotic bacteria worked in "precise harmony for the future benefit of higher organisms." The truth is symbiosis is a two-way street. There were probably countless bacteria sp. that had a less commensal relationship with other taxa in the history of life, but unless their habits made them competitive with those that did, those sp. would've been selected against. The mutualisms and nested complementary biochemical pathways that so impress you as evidence for 'pre-planning' are really what we should expect to see if the relationships between different taxa are subject to natural selection. You are free, I suppose, to wonder if whether or not the billions of years of bacterial evolution prior to the 'Cambrian Explosion' was all part of God's plan---but that's not the same thing as being able to show that there's a data set which supports such an interpretation over the usual naturalistic one---right?
To put it another way, what you're doing right now isn't so much science as it is speculation inspired by your own personal beliefs. To get scientists to take the idea seriously, you need to provide evidence which can then be tested in an unambiguous way.
With respect to your second question, ecosystems largely based on the metabolism of hydrogen sulfide in the absence of both light and atmospheric oxygen were discovered in the late 1970's. These hydrothermal vent communities are one of many exotic environments where we found archaebacteria with unusual biochemical pathways. As their name suggests, the Archae have been around for a long time. As my description suggests, they are busy doing things that conventional organisms can't do, in hostile environments that may resemble conditions on the early Earth. Many of these Archae and the communities they support may be far more common than most folk realize, and yet they don't seem to be doing anything that could count as 'preparing the way' for large metazoans that rely upon an abundance of atmospheric oxygen.
Stanton · 12 November 2007
I'm not saying that other metabolisms are superior, I'm saying that
A) Organism that use aerobic metabolism do not use elemental oxygen, and
B) Mammals can not use oxygen-based metabolism to create ATP for skeletal muscle when they are engaged in energetic activity, as normal aerobic metabolic cycle can not supply ATP fast enough. As a result, mammals must utilize fermentation metabolism, although nowhere near as efficient as oxygen-based metabolism, to supply the needed ATP to their muscle tissue, because fermentation metabolism can provide ATP faster than normal oxygen-based metabolism. If you actually knew how to read a biology textbook, you would have already known this.
Stanton · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Scott Hatfield, OM:
You say life arose by chance yet:
Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
Even the hydrothermal vent communities exhibit exceedingly complex molecular structure:
Complexity is key so let's take a look at complexity!
It is easily demonstrated mathematically that the entire universe does not even begin to come close to being old enough, nor large enough, to ally generate just one small but precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein (out of the over one million interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences that would be required to match the sequences of their particular protein types) in that very first living bacteria. If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids. This impossibility, of finding even one “required” specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don’t despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at less than 1 in 10^125 (Meyer, Evidence for Design, pg. 75)). The staggering impossibility found for the universe ever generating a “required” specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by would still be true even if we allowed that the entire universe, all 10^80 sub-atomic particles of it, were nothing but groups of 100 freely bonding amino acids, and we then tried a trillion unique combinations per second for all those 100 amino acid groups for 100 billion years! Even after 100 billion years of trying a trillion unique combinations per second, we still would have made only one billion, trillionth of the entire total combinations possible for a 100 amino acid protein during that 100 billion years of trying! Even a child knows you cannot put any piece of a puzzle anywhere in a puzzle. You must have the required piece in the required place! The simplest forms of life ever found on earth are exceedingly far more complicated jigsaw puzzles than any of the puzzles man has ever made. Yet to believe a naturalistic theory we would have to believe that this tremendously complex puzzle of millions of precisely shaped, and placed, protein molecules “just happened” to overcome the impossible hurdles of chemical bonding and probability and put itself together into the sheer wonder of immense complexity that we find in the cell.
Instead of us just looking at the probability of a single protein molecule occurring (a solar system full of blind men solving the Rubik’s Cube simultaneously), let’s also look at the complexity that goes into crafting the shape of just one protein molecule. Complexity will give us a better indication if a protein molecule is, indeed, the handi-work of an infinitely powerful Creator.
In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, that is 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it is estimated it will take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape.
"Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000
http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html
In real life, the protein folds into its final shape in a fraction of a second! The computer would have to operate at least 33 million times faster to accomplish what the protein does in a fraction of a second. That is the complexity found for JUST ONE “simple” protein. It is estimated, on the total number of known life forms on earth, that there are some 50 billion different types of unique proteins today. It is very possible the domain of the protein world may hold many trillions more completely distinct and different types of proteins. The simplest bacterium known to man has millions of protein molecules divided into, at bare minimum, several hundred distinct proteins types. These millions of precisely shaped protein molecules are interwoven into the final structure of the bacterium. Numerous times specific proteins in a distinct protein type will have very specific modifications to a few of the amino acids, in their sequence, in order for them to more precisely accomplish their specific function or functions in the overall parent structure of their protein type. To think naturalists can account for such complexity by saying it “happened by chance” should be the very definition of “absurd” we find in dictionaries. Naturalists have absolutely no answers for how this complexity arose in the first living cell unless, of course, you can take their imagination as hard evidence. Yet the “real” evidence scientists have found overwhelmingly supports the anthropic hypothesis once again. It should be remembered that naturalism postulated a very simple "first cell". Yet the simplest cell scientists have been able to find, or to even realistically theorize about, is vastly more complex than any machine man has ever made through concerted effort !! What makes matters much worse for naturalists is that naturalists try to assert that proteins of one function can easily mutate into other proteins of completely different functions by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence we now have betrays the naturalists. Individual proteins have been experimentally proven to quickly lose their function in the cell with random point mutations. What are the odds of any functional protein in a cell mutating into any other functional folded protein, of very questionable value, by pure chance?
“From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny 'X', somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny 'X'. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an 'X'. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other
“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)
Even if evolution somehow managed to overcome the impossible hurdles for generating novel proteins by totally natural means, Evolution would still face the monumental hurdles of generating complimentary protein/protein binding sites in which the novel proteins could actually interface with each other in order to accomplish specific tasks in the cell (it is estimated that there are least 10,000 different types of protein-protein binding sites in a "simple" cell). What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation from what is actually observed to be occuring on the protein level of malaria and HIV since they have infected humans? Once again the naturalists are brutally betrayed by the hard evidence that science has recently uncovered!
The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by ) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable. Dr. Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")
Flint · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Stanton:
Anomalocaris, Amiskwia, Opabinia, or even Olenellus?
If I knew anything about what they are/were right now I would answer you,,,thus I plead ignorance and, must ask for time to see exactly what you are talking about.
Sorry
Stanton · 12 November 2007
You don't care to realize that appealing to ignorance does not explain anything, do you?
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Flint,
You are totally missing the point, purpose was not presupposed by materialism, yet stunning precision was found that defied materialism and strongly suggested Theism,,
Shoot, you can hardly find a astro-physicists anymore that does not believe in a Supreme Intelligent Designer, precisely because of the overwhelming evidence that has recently been discovered, whereas before it was not so...Was this because of there prior philosophical commitment or was this because of compelling evidence?
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Albatrossity · 12 November 2007
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Better yet, BA, can you show us astrophysicists who use "GODDIT" as a genuinely scientific explanation?
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Stanton and Dave,
I don't have a hard number for % of physical scientists who believe and may have overstepped my assertion, Yet I get the impression for what I said from this article I read:
It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, "Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to expect." Martin Rees, one of Hawking's colleagues at Cambridge, notes the same facts. Rees recently stated "The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences." Science writer extraordinaire Paul Davies adds "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming." Some scientists express surprise at what they view as so many % al occurrences." However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.
Against powerful logic, some atheists continue to claim, irrespective of the anthropic constraints, that the universe and human life were created by chance. The main argument seems to be "Since we human beings are here, it must have happened in a purely reductionist manner." This argument strikes me a bit like the apocryphal response of a person waking up in the morning to find an elephant in his or her bedroom. The individual in question concludes that this is no surprise, since the probability of the elephant being in the bedroom is a perfect 100%. Obviously this is a philosophical rather than scientific response to the situation.
A reply to this argument has been developed by the philosopher/historian William Lane Craig. The atheist's argument states that since we're here, we know every element of the creation must have happened by strictly material forces. Craig's philosophical counterargument, as reported by Hugh Ross, goes like this: Suppose a dozen sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad. They all shoot a number of rounds in just the right direction, but the prisoner escapes unharmed. The prisoner could conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharpshooters missed by some extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to some remarkable piece of good luck. But he would be far more rational to conclude that the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharpshooters had all deliberately missed. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance almost immediately (in geological terms), perhaps within as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once-molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Answer my question of "how many astrophysicists use "GODDIDIT" as a genuine scientific explanation," please.
Pete Dunkelberg · 12 November 2007
I see that most of the comments here are back and forth with a creationist who wants to make his own rules about what evolution is supposed to do. Reminds me of Behe's book.
Paul Burnett · 12 November 2007
Bornagain77, in addition to Stanton's "Answer my question of “how many astrophysicists use “GODDIDIT” as a genuine scientific explanation,” please." - How many astrophysicists are you personaly acquainted with? How many astrophysical journals do you subscribe to - and read? How many astrophysical society meetings have you attended?
Or is your doctorate in biology?
erasmus, FCD · 12 November 2007
[quote]is your doctorate in biology?[/quote]
i think it is in Wild Irish Rose toxicology.
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Your line of questioning brings up an interesting point I have been thinking about:
Does science exclude God prior to investigation? and if God is a natural part of the equation of reality how would we go about concluding when God acted and when he did not?
In my post What is truth I go about to solidly infer one aspect of God's continual omnipotent influence for unchanging universal constants?
Yet if "spiritual" God were to periodic act in this world how would we infer it?
I believe that methodological naturalism can easily be modified to take into account the "conservation of information" and the Genetic Entropy of such complex specified information and infer the approximately correct times for the insertion of Complex Specified Information into organisms.
Since information is an obviously spiritual quantity, yet we are adept at discerning it, this should be relatively easy, provide a tangible to compete against Koonin's and thus be subject to a test for robustness!
Now I ask you does science exclude God prior to investigation?
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Scott Hatfield, OM · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 wrote:
Scott Hatfield, OM:
You say life arose by chance yet...
I'm puzzled. Where did I say that? First of all, as a self-identified believer, I'm obviously holding out for non-random factors at some point. Many of my scientific colleagues hold the same point of a view, as a personal matter, but we don't allow our privately-held views on religion etc. to privilege that assumption within the conduct of science. We need unequivocal evidence for non-random inputs in the evolutionary process, and so far all you've provided is speculation fueled by personal beliefs....and that's a no-no in science, as you should know.
Second of all, abiogenesis is a distinct topic from evolution both in terms of its ontological status (the former is a hypothesis, the latter is a fact) and in terms of the sort of models that can be reasonably derived from same. Let's not confuse the issue. All I was pointing out is that your inference of complexity is not in and of itself an argument for design or supernatural involvement: the fact that present-day Archaea are complex says nothing, my friend, about the ancestors of those Archaea---though it does give the lie to the claim that life could never flourish in hostile environments akin to those found on the early Earth.
brent · 12 November 2007
Scott Hatfield, OM · 12 November 2007
Now I ask you does science exclude God prior to investigation?
Scientists rule out the invocation of supernatural causes or outcomes as sufficient justification for observations or experimental results. We cannot say, "God did it", then do an experiment that produces "it", and then say "Ha! It exists, therefore God, etc."
That does not mean, however, that we have eliminated the possibility of the supernatural. Whether or not God exists is not a priori for investigation, merely the invocation of His existence. In other words, we practice 'metaphysical naturalism', which term(as previously discussed on TPT here actually owes its origin to a Christian scholar at a Christian college.
minimalist · 12 November 2007
The Gish Gallop is alive and well, I see. How many times have you allowed BA to change the subject, skipping from one unsupported assertion to the next while never answering any of the questions put to him?
Not that it can't have his good points, since the (relative) permanence of this format lets everyone see him weaseling like this.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 12 November 2007
brent · 12 November 2007
trrll · 12 November 2007
Mike Elzinga · 12 November 2007
Tyler DiPietro · 12 November 2007
"Since information is an obviously spiritual quantity..."
I'm always fascinated by the things people find "obvious".
No, BA, information is not a "spiritual quantity", whatever that is. It's a general banner under which several theories concerning the complexity of mathematical objects are grouped. And btw, "Complex Specified Information" is a meaningless buzz-phrase Dembski and his followers use to gloss over your garden variety argument from ignorance.
Flint · 12 November 2007
reverted · 12 November 2007
In support of Stanton ('astrophysicists' vs 'cosmologists'---but, whatever): "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists". (Overall, it's actually a pretty mild and 'respectful' paper, I think.)
Also interesting: "The Emptiness of Theology". (This one is not so 'respectful'. heh)
BA, it's one thing to think some sort of nebulous, unknown god exists. It's an entirely different thing to try to claim such an 'explanation' as being scientific, or to wildly leap from this 'fuzzy idea' to some modern religion's description of a god (e.g., what it's like, its expectations for us, how it will reward/punish us for our behavior, what we should eat, who we should make love to (and when, where, and how), etc.). And, let's face it: the ID/creationist population is composed of virtually 100% membership of mainstream religions---including your "born again" self, apparently.
Believe what you want. But, don't pretend it's science.
Ian Musgrave · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
reverted said:
Believe what you want. But, don’t pretend it’s science.
Ditto Amigo DITTO!
Adios my blind friends.
Paul Burnett · 12 November 2007
Mike Elzinga said: "This is complete and pretentious gibberish."
Exactly. Don't waste your time feeding the troll. BA's paragraphing skills are exceeded only by his logic skills. His purpose is just to distract us from Ian's glorious take-down of Behe. Don't let him distract you.
Tyler DiPietro · 12 November 2007
"Adios my blind friends."
Don't let the door hit you on the posterior on the way out, I can't imagine anyone will be missing your smug pretentions.
Jud · 12 November 2007
bornagain77: You do realize that the design hypothesis relies on the *non*existence of the all-powerful, all-knowing, Biblical God? To say that the complexity we see in Nature could not have evolved is the same as saying the creator of the Universe could not have chosen to create complexity through evolution, and thus that said creator was not the all-powerful Biblical God.
(Saying an all-powerful God *did* not choose to use evolution would be one side of a religious debate. In order to make any claims on being scientific rather than purely theological, the design hypothesis must reason from the premise that any creator *could* not have used evolution to create complexity.)
PalMD · 12 November 2007
Wow...superb pwnage. Too bad Behe won't understand a word of it.
Prof Weird · 12 November 2007
secondclass · 12 November 2007
Jorg · 12 November 2007
Bach · 12 November 2007
"""God is only excluded to the extent that God is typically defined as a supernatural entity. By definition, that which is supernatural cannot be observed in nature. """"
Interesting, how did evolutionists conclude God was supernatural? I hope they haven't been reading the Bible, Koran, etc. that is not an authoritative source. Sounds like evolutionists have been copying those ID/creationists in using such ridiculious books as sources for science.
Bach · 12 November 2007
You would think evolutionists would simply conclude that if God existed, then he evolved into a God through normal, everyday evolutionary processes, not that he has some special powers. That's crazy talk.
Perhaps God has evolved to the point that turning water into wine is as simple as making Pop Rocks.
brent · 12 November 2007
soteos · 12 November 2007
I looked through bornagain's posts to see how many times he changed the subject. Here's what he brought up:
viruses and malaria
the Cambrian explosion
panda migration
materialistic/theistic philosophy
truth
metabolism
purpose in science
complexity
astro-physicists
science excluding god prior to investigation
Shirley Knott · 12 November 2007
Bach, you keep using a particular word and I have no faintest notion what you might possibly mean by it.
Could you please define, or at least provide a coherent explanation of what you have in mind when you say 'god'?
Then please elaborate on whether god is natural or not, whether god is part of some system that includes nature or is entirely ontologically distinct and disjoint therefrom.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
To finish up some unfinished business,
Somebody doubted that information was a spiritual entity,,,
Well let's take a closer look,,You write information on a piece of paper, Is the paper or the ink the information? You record the information onto a tape recorder, are the sound waves you used to speak information? Is the magnetic tape in the recorder the information, You transfer the magnetic tape to a CD, is the CD now information? No we have obviously transfered a transcendent entity throughout all those totally different mediums yet the entity changed not in the least in its meaning!
As such, Are your memories (your information of your life) definitely stored in your brain? NO, there is no known definitive location for memories in the brain according to Nobelist Penfield.
As well, Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies, as well as, patient robustness after hemispherectomies, offer very suggestive, if not compelling, evidence that memories are stored on a "spiritual basis".
You Say Impossible?
With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible!
brent · 12 November 2007
Tyler DiPietro · 12 November 2007
"Somebody doubted that information was a spiritual entity..."
That was me, actually. I also happen to be a student actively studying the subject you choose to blather about. As someone has already pointed out, you are confusing "abstract" with "spiritual". To further illustrate the difference, there are various Turing equivalent models of computation with which you can implement a computational procedure. Does this replicability across substantially different models mean that computation is "spiritual"? No, there is nothing but physics behind the machine on your desktop, or any other computer for that matter.
Tyler DiPietro · 12 November 2007
Oh btw folks, the idiot hath spoken again.
soteos · 12 November 2007
Popper's Ghost · 12 November 2007
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
Soteos stated:
According to your logic, removing part of your brain will have no impact on what you know.
Life With A Half Brain
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_1998_Nov_16/ai_53349823
and another study:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/163
Why Would You Remove Half a Brain? The Outcome of 58 Children After Hemispherectomy
Many children who have had hemispherectomies (half their brains removed due to life threatening epileptic conditions) at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, are in high school; and one, a college student, is on the dean’s list. The families of these children can barely believe the transformation; and not so long ago, neurologists and neuro-surgeons found it hard to believe as well. What is surprising for these people is that they are having their overriding materialistic view of brain correlation to consciousness overturned. In other words; since, it is presumed by Materialism that the brain is the primary generator of consciousness; then, it is totally expected for a person having half their brain removed to be severely affected when it comes to memory and personality. This is clearly a contradiction between the Materialistic and Theistic philosophies. According to Materialistic dogma, memory and personality should be affected, just as badly, or at least somewhat as badly, as any of the other parts of the body, by removal of half the brain. Yet, as a team of neuro-surgeons that have done extensive research on the after effects of hemispherectomy at John Hopkins Medical Center comment: "We are awed by the apparent retention of the child’s memory after removal of half of the brain, either half; and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor." Though a patients physical capacities are impaired, just as they were expected to be immediately following surgery; and have to have time to be "rewired" to the consciousness in the brain, the memory and personality of the patient comes out unscathed in the aftermath of such radical surgery. This is exactly the result one would expect, if the consciousness is ultimately independent of brain function and is spiritually-based. This is totally contrary to the results one would expect if the consciousness were actually physically-based, as the materialistic theory had presumed. In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." This is stunning proof of consciousness being independent of brain function. The only child not to have normal or improved intellect is the child who remained in a coma due to complications during surgery. It is also heartening to find that many of the patients regain full use, or almost full use, of their bodies after a varying period of recuperation in which the brain is “rewired” to the consciousness.
II Corinthians 5:1
For we know that if our earthly house, this tent (Our Body), is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
reverted · 12 November 2007
brent · 12 November 2007
soteos · 12 November 2007
Thanks brent, you said it better than I could. Brain removal wasn’t a very good example on my part. I should have used something like brain injury or memory loss instead. My point is that if information is separate from the brain, then whatever happens to the brain will have no effect on what a person knows. Which simply isn’t true.
The article you linked provides a scientific explanation (albeit, not a very detailed one) for what happens to information in the brain when part of it is removed. How does that support your argument of dualism?
Physicalist · 12 November 2007
BornAgain: your inability to recognize that materialism has absolutely no problem with distributed memory, with functional improvement for epileptics after hemispherectomies, etc. is just sad.
You seem supremely confident (and supremely mistaken) about what materialism predicts in these cases. Tell me, what does dualism predict regarding impairment and damage to the brain? Have you ever seen someone who's suffered a stroke? Ever seen someone under the influence of alcohol? That non-physical soul sure cares an awful lot about how the physical brain functions, don't it?
I'll second SecondClass's request: where do you answer high level critics with ease? Obviously not here. You've been shown over and over that your claims are thoroughly confused. Your answer: ignore the corrections. That's just sad.
Don't you think that god of yours would want you to *understand* the stuff you're spouting off about? The first step in this direction (I'm sorry to break it to you) is that you're going to have to recognize that you actually understand far less than you think you do. Try reading Plato's Meno as a start.
Russell · 12 November 2007
Do send this along to Michael Fumento, the little corporal who has spun his virological anti-expertise ( The Myth Of Heterosexual AIDS) into playing surgeon general on Fox TV , Human Events and The Washington Times when stem cell experiments fail to fail.
dave · 12 November 2007
One response already from Behe -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2OTVLP47ECD7X
He only came out with the Mean Girls crack because
"As far as I’m concerned, if a complete stranger sends me a message with a sneering tone like that, she can go soak her head. I had no intention of replying to Smith’s post at all; I did so only after I received requests from other folks who wanted me to reply.... After that passage I addressed only the science, not her sneering tone."
Four more posts to go! Will he answer any of the science in Part 1? Will he be able to understand, let alone answer, part2? Will he now explain how God makes pigs fly?
Don't miss the next exciting episode!!!
Ian Musgrave · 12 November 2007
jeh · 12 November 2007
Who is this ubiquituous bornagain77? I'm assuming this nom de plume means that he was "born again" in 1977. And why does he feel the need to constantly post his two cents on this blog? Does he really think that the readers of this blog are going to be convinced by his anti-materialist screed? Or does he feel that he is "witnessing" to sinners that will see the error of their ways because of his impeccable logic?
bornagain77 obviously thinks very little of the readers of this blog--his comments drip with disdain: "Adios my blind friends." Hey, why not just follow it up with a quick "I hope you all burn in hell!"?
So, bornagain77, why don't you just go away and hang out with all those that agree with you over on UD?
bornagain77 · 12 November 2007
I have failed, miserably, to persuade most of your "high level" closed minds, I definitely underestimated some of you guys blindness. I hope at least a few have been persuaded by the evidence, that I have presented, to at least have a fair amount of skepticism towards evolutionary thought. But I see scant evidence for hope. Other than that, coming on this site, thinking I could persuade most of you guys was a big mistake, For thinking hard hearted men could be reasoned with was a big mistake, For thinking, when presented with the truth, intelligent men could be reasonable, was a mistake. No it was my fault and I was wrong to think I could easily persuade the unreasonable, blind, hard-hearted, fool who has said in his heart "There is no God!" The fool who would rather wallow in whatever dark thing has separated him from God than to know the Truth!
But then again you may be unreasonable with me and that is all fine and well, because I am nobody and nothing but a miserable recovered, homeless, drunk, but you will be reasonable one day (we all will for that matter)! And I am telling no lie, When we die, (and we will all die to this world), we WILL meet God, and I guarantee you with all that I hold sacred,, we will have no doubt whatsoever about His reality at all when we do die.
So please be very careful with this matter Gentlemen, it is no laughing matter, it is serious, and it is indeed real and it will become real personal before you know it.
I find it very interesting , that most of the people on this blog are putting all their money on the fact that they think there MIGHT not be a God. That is a very very foolish bet Gentlemen!
WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG GENTLEMEN? What IF you are wrong?
jeh · 12 November 2007
But the question can also be put to you, bornagain77: What if you are wrong? Would you immediately engage in rape and murder if you found out there was no God? Would you consider your life a waste if you found out there was no afterlife? I worry about individuals like you--if you should ever lose your "faith".
You obviously feel the need to be superior. Maybe you are very much like some Christians that I have known who would feel nothing but joy to think that their God would torture their enemies for all eternity.
brent · 12 November 2007
WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG GENTLEMEN? What IF you are wrong?
LOL. Pascal's Wager. Without a doubt, the lamest arrow in the religionists quiver in all caps no less. Seriously , are you 12 years old or something bornagain? Thats pretty lame even for a creationist.
reverted · 12 November 2007
brent · 12 November 2007
WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG GENTLEMEN? What IF you are wrong?
LOL. Pascal's Wager. Without a doubt, the lamest arrow in the religionists quiver in all caps no less. Seriously , are you 12 years old or something bornagain? Thats pretty lame even for a creationist.
Flint · 12 November 2007
Standard bible-banger boilerplate by now. Preach idiocy, ignore all corrections, preach more idiocy, ignore all corrections, preach again, then accuse those whose corrections you ignored of being "closed minded", presume everyone is wrong EXCEPT the only "contributor" who lacks the relevant knowledge, and wander off to preach elsewhere. Morton's Demon remains impermeable. Knowledge remains "unreasonable", faith in defiance of evidence remains intact.
But I think we HAVE learned something critical: good parenting is important. Fill the child with nonsense, and you get THIS as an adult. A true cautionary example.
Mike Elzinga · 12 November 2007
Frank J · 12 November 2007
Ian Musgrave · 12 November 2007
Stanton · 12 November 2007
Ian Musgrave · 12 November 2007
Frank J · 12 November 2007
deadman_932 · 12 November 2007
bornagain77: Yes, you have failed. Miserably.
The reason why you have failed is because you tried to serve up bullshit claims by bullshit artists to a well-informed audience that knows how to deal with it -- it was pushed right back in your face.
I'd be nicer if I thought you were a reasonable person, but I have yet to see that exhibited. I'm sorry you were a homeless drunk. I am sorrier that you have exchanged one debilitating, mind-numbing addiction for another.
See, I happen to think that your last post was especially telling. The implication is that you view God as some insane thing that would punish any human refusing to worship it, or even harboring mere doubt about its existence. That is hardly a loving God. It's a madman's god.
I enjoyed your frothy-spittle-flying-from-quivering-outraged-lips departure, though. Have a *nice* day :)
deadman_932 · 12 November 2007
Whoops, sorry, Ian. I should have checked to see what had been stated prior to my posting. Mea culpa and all that.
Jake Boyman · 12 November 2007
I find it very interesting , that most of the people on this blog are putting all their money on the fact that they think there MIGHT not be a God. That is a very very foolish bet Gentlemen!
WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG GENTLEMEN? What IF you are wrong?
WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG BORNAGAIN77? What if Islam is the one true faith? What if Hinduism is true, you've been bad this time around, and you have a couple really shitty reincarnations? What if the afterlife is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE YOU IMAGINED IT, and your being a devout Christian is irrelevant? (Sorry for the caps.)
What if, BA? Do you have the slightest piece of evidence that your religious beliefs are right while ours, and those of everyone else who disagrees with you are wrong?
Didn't think so. So please bugger off and quit trying to screw up science. The grownups are trying to have a conversation. You're an embarrassment.
Duran · 12 November 2007
BA: Finally (maybe), you have stopped embarrassing yourself. Do you really want to convince me? Stop changing the subject and answer all the questions posted by others here, not with lies or nonsense, but with concrete arguments and, when relevant, stating your sources. It has been sad reading how misinformed and deluded you are. And trust me, you have convinced nobody.
Dale Husband · 13 November 2007
I see bornagain77 is once again attempting to entertain us with this unique brand of Creationist logic.
If I were the Creator, would I ever design life on Earth only a few thousand years ago to be anything like it is now, complete with a fossil record of many thousands of extinct organisms?
Certainly not! The very idea is absurd and makes God Himself look like a liar and/or an idiot.....which would nicely explain people like bornagain77.
I don't accept such blasphemy. Why should anyone else?
Popper's Ghost · 13 November 2007
Stuart Weinstein · 13 November 2007
BornAgain writes:
"
Stanton,
Please prove your assertion that any other form of metabolism is superior to oxygen metabolism."
What if there is no oxygen? I suspect sulfur reducing based metabolism beats Oxygen under
those circumstances. Wouldn't you agree?
Stuart
Popper's Ghost · 13 November 2007
Bach · 13 November 2007
I don't see SUPERNATURAL as part of the defiition of God, yet all evolutionist extremists use the term. Why?
I know many got all out of sorts when we use the term RANDOM rather then ACCIDENTAL because Darwin used ACCIDENTAL, not RANDOM to describe natural selection.
God
–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
There maybe certain religions that believe God is supernatural, but I didn't know actual real scientists were signing onto a particular religious bent.
I would think a God could have evolved the same way the pandas so-called thumb evolved.
Bach · 13 November 2007
Brent said: """Why would we conclude anything of the sort? Conclusions are based upon evidence. There is no evidence to suggest anything about God so:
"""
That is the funniest thing I have ever read. Scientists conclusions are based on evidence?? Your kidding right?
Behe is a scientist, yet you all claim he's a lunatic?
You believe Darwin and his fellow scientists of his day conclusions and the evidence he used still stand up to scrutiny?
Scientist conclusions are at best a wild ass guesses based on tiny amounts of data which are subsequently proven wrong or at best partially correct and/or misleading.
Evolutionist extremists really worry me because, like man-made global warming fanatics they see evolution in every piece of information. Global warming nuts have a hot day in October and BAM, global warming.
Frank J · 13 November 2007
Popper's Ghost · 13 November 2007
Stanton · 13 November 2007
brent · 13 November 2007
jeh · 13 November 2007
"Behe is a scientist, yet you all claim he’s a lunatic?"
Behe was a practicing scientist at one time, and a good one at that. But now he thinks that experiments are a waste of time for him to do (he has said as much). He would have a lot more street cred if he was actually in his lab trying to test the predictions that he believes ID makes.
Which prompts the question: Does he think that the empirical evidence might not agree with his predictions?
Armchair science is easy to do, but lab research is demanding, both physically and intellectually. Critics of evolution should try it sometime.
Tracy P. Hamilton · 13 November 2007
Henry J · 13 November 2007
Henry J · 13 November 2007
Glen Davidson · 13 November 2007
John C. Welch · 14 November 2007
Glove · 14 November 2007
Until atheists can justify their use of induction and the uniformity of nature in their universe of mere matter in motion, their battle against the Christian God is doomed to failure. The atheistic worldview reduces to absurdity. Today's "scientists" are technicians and don't have the philosophical sophistication to realize mankind's ultimate foundation for knowledge - God. Time for atheists to read up on matters of epistemology and things logically prior to biology.
Frank J · 14 November 2007
Glove,
What you say is completely irrelevant to evolution, and how it's misrepresented by anti-science activists. If you think that God used something other than evolution to create species, IC systems, whatever, please tell us what you think it is. Start with the basic questions, such as how long has life been on earth, and whether humans share common ancestors with other species.
Popper's Ghost · 14 November 2007
Welch's response is long and confused. A simpler response is that BA argues in effect that a DVD player can play a movie even if the DVD is removed because the movie is still present in "spirit".
To Glove: read David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality", which explains how science if based on inference to the best explanation, not induction. As for absurdity, the notion that God is the ultimate foundation of knowledge is utterly incoherent. Read up on epistemology indeed.
Popper's Ghost · 14 November 2007
Glove · 14 November 2007
It wasn't irrelevant to the Professor of Biology and his Masters student I recently spoke to. They could not rationalize their use of induction and resorted to irrational argumentation, scoffing, and obfuscation. I reminded them, after their halfway back peddling, that any notion of theistic evolution allegorizes Genesis and effectively cuts the heart out of any need for redemption. The truth is, men in lab coats are like anyone else. They carry presuppositions into their theories, good or bad. There is no neutral, objective ground in these matters. We all have an authority we appeal to, again good or bad. And the ideas we draw from these authorities yield consequences.
John C. Welch · 14 November 2007
Popper, it was his comment that memories aren't stored "in the brain" that I was replying to. The neat thing in the film was that they were actually probing across a fairly wide area of the brain, (this was something like 20 or so years ago, so forgive me if details are a bit murky), and were amazed at just how decentralized memory storage was. I agree that there's no one "memory spot" in the brain, but, memories are most definitely stored in the brain.
AllieMckenzie · 29 March 2010
A success usually depends on essay outline offered by essayscentre.com. But your outcome just about this good post is interesting also.
personal loans · 24 June 2010
Various people in all countries get the credit loans in different creditors, because that's fast and easy.