Conflicts and Fractures in the ID Community

I’ve committed the unpardonable sin several times of criticizing other ID proponents publicly, but when I think claims or methods need to be challenged, I feel obligated to speak out because I find myself contesting certain ways the ID argument is presented when I make presentations about ID and/or special creation.

The conflicts are over the relevance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory, Specified Complexity, Conservation of Information, Framing Probability Arguments, and whether ID is science.

Many ID proponents and creationists privately concede the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not an argument against the evolution biological organization. If I asked sophomore chemistry, physics, and mechanical engineering students to use standard molar entropy tables, they can demonstrate a living human has MORE entropy than a frozen dead rat. Thus, it is silly to argue that somehow lowering entropy is a requirement for making complex biological systems. There are many cases the opposite is necessary! Nuff’ said…

AE Wilder-Smith in his famous debate with Richard Dawkins introduced the idea of chemicals plus information are necessary for the origin of life. Generations of ID proponents and creationists have equivocated, confused, and muddled the issue with conflicting definitions of information ever since Wilder-Smith, and the outcome has had mixed results.

Contrast Wilder-Smith’s arguments with how James Tour (620 peer-reviewed articles, 77,000+ citations) argues against natural origin of life. He doesn’t need information theory!

Worse, consider the following simple example of design in the arrangement of dominoes standing up. If I asked why is this arrangement of dominoes likely designed based on ID information theory arguments, Specified Complexity, Conservation of Information, one will quickly realize all ID information theory arguments confuse the issue at best. Simpler arguments based on expectation and law-of-large-numberESQUE arguments will suffice.

Ask yourself, if one can’t even apply Specified Complexity, Conservation of Information Arguments, to trivial designs like dominoes, how can these arguments be persuasive to much more involved designs like that in the Origin of Life, Zinc Fingers and Nuclear Localizations Signals in Eukaryotes? Eeesh! More mathematical theatrics does not make an argument better. Substance rather than theatrics is better.

The way to frame probability arguments so as to avoid the claims of after-the-fact-Texas sharpshooter fallacies needs to be addressed more. It can be done, but not enough has been done on this…

ID proponents do not serve their cause well, imho, by saying, “ID is science.” It ends up being a red herring, and opponents of ID would love ID proponents to make this claim because ID proponents will be taken to task for saying it. I get a lot of hatred from ID types for saying things like ID falsifiable, not science, not positive, not directly testable. But if I, as a card carrying creationist and card carrying Discovery Institute donor can see the problems of saying “ID is science,” how much more anyone else, especially those on the fence.

The best pro-ID talk I’ve ever heard was by someone who doesn’t even identify as an ID proponent, James Tour. His infamous talk at a Discovery Institute-sponsored event is the model that ID proponents should follow. [See the ironically titled article James Tour: Liar for Jesus]. The other model of arguing for ID AND special creation was by John Sanford at his infamous talk at the NIH. [see Famous Geneticist Tells NIH that Humans Are Going Extinct].

0

158 thoughts on “Conflicts and Fractures in the ID Community

  1. stcordova: Thank you for you comment.

    Unlike other ID proponents and creaitonists, I agree genes can arise de novo, but they can’t be certain classes of genes. It’s brutally obvious anything life critical needing simultaneous highly specific binding/connection and mulitple connections won’t arise by such means.

    .. he declared loudly and with great conviction, while stamping his feet. He never demonstrated why.

    0
  2. stcordova: I already said SOME proteins can arise de novo easily, but life critical integrated ones, not so easy

    Let’s imagine a scenario where a de novo protein folds:

    DNA > mRNA > amino acid chain > protein fold

    While the process leading up to the new protein fold is a linear arrangement of classical information processes the 1 dimensional chain of amino acids now folds into a 3 dimensional structure: the newly evolved protein now needs the position information…

    The question naturally arises: Where did this new spatial information for the newly folded protein come from?

    0
  3. colewd:
    J-Mac,

    This has been done according to Perry Marshal.The problem is this is before the first inning of explaining the origin of the eukaryotic cell.

    I remember the claim…😥 got a link?

    0
  4. Rumraket:

    He never demonstrated why.

    I showed you TopoIsomerase. How about Helicase? 🙂

    0
  5. keiths:

    The conclusions are that organisms share a common ancestor, but proteins do not.

    petrushka:

    My less educated reading is that traces of such histories can be erased by drift.

    Yes, but the argument for de novo genes rests on more than a lack of commonality with other genes. Scientists have also identified non-coding ancestral sequences that give rise to genes.

    0
  6. Still awaiting an answer, Sal:

    stcordova:

    Rube Golberg machines are designed, not for efficiency, but to showcase ingenuity of the Designer in getting something to work the hard way…

    keiths:

    Rube Goldberg machines aren’t optimized for scientific discovery.

    You can’t have it both ways, Sal.

    stcordova:

    Sure you can because they are God-made, not man made.

    keiths:

    How does that help? They still aren’t optimized for scientific discovery. Complex systems are harder to understand than simple ones.

    0
  7. J-Mac: Where did this new spatial information for the newly folded protein come from?

    The amino acid sequence. Amino acids have physical and chemical affinities that explain how they conform to certain folds in certain solvents. And certain physical conditions can change how they fold, such as temperature, pH of solvent and so on and so forth.

    0
  8. stcordova: I showed you TopoIsomerase. How about Helicase?

    Showing the protein is not a demonstration it can’t evolve. I could just show it and claim it’s a demonstration it evolved and that would be no different from what you did.

    0
  9. stcordova:
    Don’t misinterpret my disagreement as lack of understanding.You’re the one who is failing to make a defensible argument.

    What fucking disagreement Salvador? You’re not disagreeing, you’re missing the fucking point time and again! Again, read for fucking comprehension! You don’t understand at all, otherwise you would not be treating this “no universal common ancestry for proteins” as a mere poll. For fucks sake. This only confirms that you just don’t get it. The very nature of the relationship between DNA->RNA->protein makes it obvious that there cannot be a PUCA. That you don’t get it means that you don’t understand that basic biology/biochemistry. It’s that straightforward.

    stcordova:
    You can start trying to explain for the reader how different initiation complexes as depicted above arose naturally. I mean, the transitionals from a common ancestor would be DOA without a miracle. It’s rather obvious.

    Did you read what I wrote? The lack of universal common ancestry of proteins has nothing to do with whether I, or anybody else, can explain the origin of new proteins or not. It just shows that you have no idea about the most basic biology and biochemistry. The only relationship between your PUCA fiasco/nonsequitur and your questioning of how (or whether) proteins evolved is that your insistence on PUCA reveals abysmal lack of understanding, and thus there’s no way anybody can explain anything to you because you lack the most basic background, and because you just won’t even try and read for comprehension.

    I truly don’t understand why everybody else is trying to explain protein evolution to you, when it’s clear that you don’t understand basic biology/biochemistry and you cannot read beyond one sentence.

    Have some fucking self-respect!

    0
  10. Rumraket: The amino acid sequence. Amino acids have physical and chemical affinities that explain how they conform to certain folds in certain solvents. And certain physical conditions can change how they fold, such as temperature, pH of solvent and so on and so forth.

    But none of these can account for the NEW positional or spatial information…
    Chemical affinities could explain to a degree how the amino acids themselves fold into a 3D structure but not the position or the spatial information of the newly evolved and folded protein. Solvents don’t have the spatial information…

    As an example, just imagine the process of cell differentiation in the embryo development. The position or spatial information of the differentiated cells is essential to the proper development of of the embryo. Same applies to the evolution of the new protein. Unless the protein “knows” it’s position or after just being evolved it’s useless and it’s going to be be scrapped…

    What do you mean by physical affinities exactly?

    ETA: if by physical affinities you mean quantum correlation, such as quantum entanglement, it can be easily tested. Same applies to quantum spatial information. IF quantum entanglement and information are necessary for the protein to fold and position, the disruption of one of them will prevent the protein from folding of the configuration and the position is going to be different than in the same amino acid sequence without interruptions…

    0
  11. J-Mac: The question naturally arises: Where did this new spatial information for the newly folded protein come from?

    A bell rings. A weary sigh fills the air. Once more the designer pulls her boots on and gets ready to fill in the gaps her idiot nephew left when he built her that universe on the cheap. What do you mean they need to be told explicitly not to kill each other? I need to go and tell them??? was one of the more sour memories.

    The holiday that the savings had paid for was now a distant memory. Now, for at least another few billion years until the thing finally winds down, she was on the hook. Goddam proteins ain’t going to fold themselves, not in this universe, no sireee.
    To be fair, it was only a few zillion payloads that needed delivering per shift. You had to concentrate but it was manageable. She still chuckled over that one she heard about where some character called Hesus or something actually held together every molecule directly! I’m sure it sounded great in the shop but imagine! Apparently they’ve not been on holiday since they started that one, they just can’t step away for a moment.

    So, on the whole, not too bad. I’ve calmed it down a bit lately with the personal appearances too. I’m doing the whole ineffable thing now, it’s great! Apart from, as I say, the bleeding proteins that need a-foldin. Just a few more gazillion and I can knock off till tomorrow! Finally, my day of rest! But at least I don’t have to play dress up any more just not to blow their socks off. I’m still finding thorns from that goddam bush, and the ash of it got everywhere! Oy Vey! Do you know how difficult it is to find someone who can carve commandments into stone and not shit their pants from my awesomeness?

    0
  12. J-Mac: Unless the protein “knows” it’s position or after just being evolved it’s useless and it’s going to be be scrapped…

    Is that right……?

    Why do you put “knows” in quotation marks?

    0
  13. J-Mac: But none of these can account for the NEW positional or spatial information…
    Chemical affinities could explain to a degree how the amino acids themselves fold into a 3D structure but not the position or the spatial information of the newly evolved and folded protein.

    That makes zero logical sense. The physical and chemical attributes of the amino acid sequence determines how the protein folds under the pertinent conditions, and therefore their relative spatial positions in the folded proteins. There is no mystery here.

    If you want to know what determines the sequence of amino acids in the protein relative to each other, it’s the DNA strand that encodes it. If you want to know what determines the sequence of bases in DNA, it’s the anti-sense strand from which it was copied, some times with a few mutations. Now extend that for billions of generations back in time and you can basically see how a protein coding gene can evolve.

    0
  14. J-Mac: As an example, just imagine the process of cell differentiation in the embryo development.

    Channeling Bill Cole?

    Unless the protein “knows” it’s position or after just being evolved it’s useless and it’s going to be be scrapped…

    What the hell gave you that idea?

    What do you mean by physical affinities exactly?

    Physical shape and electromagnetic charge.

    Electrons and protons experience a mutual force of attraction due to their opposite electromagnetic charge. This is THE basis for all of chemistry. So a positively charged area of a molecule will attract a negatively charged area of another molecule. If the different molecules are also shaped such that the parts that experience a mutual force of attraction fit well together(say the positively charged part on molecule A is protruding, and the negatively charged part on molecule B is localized to some invagination), you have a nice binding spot.

    Some parts of amino acids are charged or otherwise polar molecules, other parts of amino acids are non-polar, so the different amino acids in the protein sequence will be attracted or repelled by water molecules and other ions in the surrounding solvent, and will either attract or repel nearby amino acids in the same protein. These interactions between the different amino acids in the protein chain and the solvent will cause the protein to adopt some particular 3dimensional conformation. If you change the sequence of amino acids, you will affect how it behaves in the solvent, and therefore might cause it to adopt a different conformation, and so on and so forth.

    I highly recommend you take basic organic chemistry, and pay very special attention in class when you learn about inter and intra-molecular forces of attraction and the nature of chemical bonds.

    0

  15. Entropy: I truly don’t understand why everybody else is trying to explain protein evolution to you, when it’s clear that you don’t understand basic biology/biochemistry and you cannot read beyond one sentence.

    Have some fucking self-respect!

    Hey, you need to get a little angrier. It’s very entertaining to me.

    0
  16. You people really have an inordinate amount of misconceptions about chemistry which even the barest of basic organic chemistry would go a long way towards rectifying.

    I highly recommend you take even high-school level organic chemistry. It provides the basis for understanding so many other things related to biochemistry and molecular biology. If you understand the fundamentals of chemical bonds and the physical properties of organic molecules, so much else becomes obvious and understandable.

    You are wasting your time arguing on the internet. Go to school, learn stuff! And please don’t bullshit me by claiming you already have, clearly, clearly you haven’t. Or you weren’t paying attention when you did.

    0
  17. Rumraket:

    Electrons and protons experience a mutual force of attraction due to their opposite electromagnetic charge. This is THE basis for all of chemistry.

    Actually:

    Quantum Mechanics is the Foundation of Chemistry

    https://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/S02/lect9/lect9.htm

    I mean, what about the Pauli Exclusion principle, orbitals, principle quantum numbers, etc.?

    The rest of what you said, I’m ok with however. But I just couldn’t resist calling this out since Entropy insists I don’t understand the basics of chemistry.

    0
  18. stcordova: Actually:

    Quantum Mechanics is the Foundation of Chemistry

    I find it pointless to debate OOL, or even evolution, with people who think that life begins at the chemical level and only if scientists could mix the chemicals right and get the primordial soup right, all the illusion about life creating itself will come true…

    0
  19. OMagain:

    The holiday that the savings had paid for was now a distant memory. Now, for at least another few billion years until the thing finally winds down, she was on the hook. Goddam proteins ain’t going to fold themselves, not in this universe, no sireee.

    The poor thing also has to run around rusting things, since the entropy of rust is lower than the entropy of iron and gaseous oxygen.

    No wonder she’s always in a bad mood.

    0
  20. Sal,
    This is a picture of double helix.
    Can you guess what the black stuff is?
    I will give you a tip: quantum correlations that are difficult to depict…

    0

  21. stcordova:
    Hey, you need to get a little angrier.It’s very entertaining to me.

    It’s not anger, it’s trying to get you to read for comprehension, but nothing will work, you lack the most basic skills, so I quit on you. Have at it. Ridicule yourself to your heart’s content.

    0
  22. walto: Most libertarian free-willists would deny this. They’d say (mostly following Van Inwagen) that it’s agent causation.

    But what does ‘agent causation’ mean in concrete, mathematical terms? That’s the benefit of ID, it gives a concrete, mathematical definition of what this third way looks like that is neither determinism, randomness, nor a mix of the two.

    stcordova: Part of the motivation for the development of CSI and the leveraging of No Free Lunch theorems was to critique natural selection and computerized “models” of biology such as Tierra and Avida.

    As much as I’d like to come to the aid of my pro-CSI colleagues and friends, I feel like I’m helping them bang their head against a wall when there are easier avenues to critique Darwin’s Fantasized (not natural) selection.

    The great thing, in my mind, about CSI and COI is that it’s pure math. We know exactly what all the terms mean and how to know with certainty when an answer is right or wrong. No need to have constant back and forth debate. Then, once we’re clear on that point, what it all means and is applied also becomes clear. Thus, it is a fundamental result that applies to any field: biology, cosmology, economics, computer science, etc.

    On the other hand, relying on arguments from biological evidence, while I agree are pretty compelling, there’s always this constant back and forth with a bunch of obscure terminology and constant speculation and conjecture, with very loose claims that people interpret many different ways. Very messy and difficult to get clarity on what everyone is saying and who is right and who is wrong, without a lot of background study. Not something I really have time for. And, if I did have time to straighten it all out, I would have only learned something that applies to biology. Not saying it is not worthwhile to do, but seems more limited in scope than the mathematical approach.

    My initial attraction to ID was not due to the creation/evolution debate, but because, as I mentioned above, it provided a new insight on a fundamental question and appears to be very widely applicable, even in my own field of computer science. So, while it is a bit (or more!) hyperbolic to say Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, I believe there is also some truth to the statement.

    As another commentator said, and I agree, there is a lot of the apologetics and evangelical sort of motivation behind the ID movement. And I’d lie if I said I had absolutely no such motivation in my own interest. But for me, and I believe a fair number of ID proponents at the top of the movement, the primary motivation is the truth motivation. We believe we actually do have a new, fundamental insight into reality that not addressed by contemporary scientific thought, and is worth exploring further. And as most people feel who believe they’ve perceived an important, fundamental truth, if we are censored and shut down it spurs us to ask “why?”

    0
  23. EricMH:

    The great thing, in my mind, about CSI and COI is that it’s pure math

    There is a beauty about pure math, even some applied math in physics borders on pure math in its sheer beauty. Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Mechanics had some very beautiful math.

    General Relativity and Electro Magnetic theory also had beautiful math. But some of the ugliest math I saw was in astro and plasma physics and in Electrical Engineering. There was certain lack of elegance when we got to modelling specific problems rather than grand theories.

    To my mind, as far as the origin of life, there isn’t a lot of need of math for it. Basic theory and experiment have shown how unlikely it is.

    That said, there was a rare collaboration between your mentor and mine, Robert Marks and John Sanford, on poly constrained genes/proteins in biology. I hope you and I can collaborate on something sometime. I’d really like to tear the results of Avida and Weasel to shreds some day. I had a conversation with Robert Marks about it in 2016, but we ran out of time to pursue the topic more….maybe one day we can write something about it for Blyth…

    I hope to see you around here more. I had to leave “peaceful” science too. TSZ works better for me….

    0
  24. EricMH,

    That’s the benefit of ID, it gives a concrete, mathematical definition of what this third way looks like that is neither determinism, randomness, nor a mix of the two.

    All the explanatory filter does is to assume the existence of a “third way” separate from chance and necessity. It provides no evidence that chance and necessity are not exhaustive, and that the “third way” is therefore non-empty.

    0
  25. Hey Sal, if the world is optimised for scientific discovery, there must be loads of evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old, right? Where is it? I’m asking because 200 years of geological science has so far failed to find any of it.

    0
  26. stcordova: Quantum Mechanics is the Foundation of Chemistry

    I don’t disagree with you here. Obviously physics describe the underlying principles that govern the properties of atoms, including molecules and their interactions, but you don’t need to understand quantum mechanics to understand why proteins fold.

    If you wanted to really accurately model protein folding, then yes you’d want to do the quantum physical calculations that describe all the individual atoms that makes up the protein molecule, including the atoms that constitute the solvent.

    0
  27. EricMH:
    The great thing, in my mind, about CSI and COI is that it’s pure math.We know exactly what all the terms mean and how to know with certainty when an answer is right or wrong.No need to have constant back and forth debate.Then, once we’re clear on that point, what it all means and is applied also becomes clear.Thus, it is a fundamental result that applies to any field: biology, cosmology, economics, computer science, etc.

    The tricky thing about pure math is, no matter how beautiful the equations and unambiguous the results are, you have to be able to show they correspond to the real world. So no, just because you know what the terms in your equations mean that doesn’t mean they apply to the real world.

    You can have beautiful linear equation which you can claim and insist all you want describes population growth, but no amount of insisting that the equation entails population growth is always linear, actually makes population growth always linear.

    0
  28. faded_Glory:
    Hey Sal, if the world is optimised for scientific discovery, there must be loads of evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old, right? Where is it? I’m asking because 200 years of geological science has so far failed to find any of it.

    Hey!!!!!

    Long time. We’ve been acquainted through the net since about 2003, that’s about 16 years.

    I met some YEC geologists in the Petroleum Industry like Time Clarey, they might be better qualified than I to respond.

    But where is the evidence? All around us. But the issue is like the GeoCentrism vs. Heliocentrism debate of a long time ago. It took a little bit more examination before correct model was arrived at.

    In any case, I hope to review more of it here at TSZ since I’m thinking of writing a YEC/YLC book, and this is a great place to get editorial review!

    But a few items.
    1. Faint Young Sun Paradox

    2. The Graph of Racemization constants. If Geological Ages ASSUMED, it shows the implied vs. predicted, showed the racemization rate constant even with corrections for the Arrhenius equation shows assumption is false because the implied line doesn’t agree with the predicted line.

    3. YEC professors of geology at Cedarville want to build million dollar flume to test YEC theories, I expect the flood model will be vindicated. A testable prediction!

    4. Genetic Entropy.

    5. Miracles of Healing in Jesus name to those He chose to extend grace to.

    0

  29. Rumraket: but you don’t need to understand quantum mechanics to understand why proteins fold.

    Thanks for the data point, I wasn’t aware of that. Kudos.

    0
  30. J-Mac:
    Sal,
    This is a picture of double helix.
    Can you guess what the black stuff is?
    I will give you a tip: quantum correlations that are difficult to depict…

    Sal,

    The classical information in double helix is held, jammed by quantum information-the black stuff-as you probably know, since you are one of the very few who understands the fundamental levels of matter and chemical properties of reactions…

    The interesting concept of this fact is since quantum correlations hold the double helix together, by the entanglement, can the classical information even be accessed for such processes as protein folds?
    The law of conservation of quantum information says no.
    This means that de novo protein folds might be restricted within available quantum information. In other words, de novo proteins are not really innovations…

    To illustrate:
    The evolution of dogs from wolves leading to all sorts of dogs, coywolves etc. is allowed or restricted only within the dog kind by the available quantum information…

    This fact can be tested on the smaller scale in the protein folds and on the larger scale in the embryo development by disrupting the quantum information:
    in 2 identical chains of amino acids and
    2 or more embryos

    If one of the two identical amino acids chains get the quantum information disrupted and folds differently, or not at all, and the other does, that would mean that quantum information is essential to protein folds…
    Same can be applied in the embryo development process…

    0
  31. J-mac:

    The interesting concept of this fact is since quantum correlations hold the double helix together,

    I saw some PEER-REVIEWED biophysics papers to that effect. They were over my head, however.

    0
  32. stcordova: I saw some PEER-REVIEWED biophysics papers to that effect.They were over my head, however.

    Link please!

    They are.. it’s not a new concept though…

    I’m plowing through some interesting books and papers and keep getting the sense that quantum mechanics with quantum information is everything, unless dark energy is discovered…
    I told my older son to gear up for quantum biology as he has an outstanding imagination and vision…
    Recently I realized that quantum vitalism is a must in OOL.. it can possibly be tested… If dark energy is at the foundation of life, animating the matter, then the disruption of quantum information should not kill plants or fruit fly embryos, unless of course both are needed…😀

    ETA: came across some stuff that the speed of light is variable and that can put the age of the universe in question. If one adds the axis of evil, the big bang current set up of the model could be dead…

    0
  33. J-Mac: Link please!

    I lost it, sorry. If I find it, I’ll post.

    I actually was poking around this topic trying to solve a problem for Dr. Sanford!

    0
  34. At the risk of encouraging both of you, here are some relevant Google search results:

    Link

    0
  35. J-Mac: Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’

    A more complete quote

    “Lateral gene transfer would explain how eukaryotes that supposedly evolved from an archaeal cell obtained so many bacterial genes important to metabolism: the eukaryotes picked up the genes from bacteria and kept those that proved useful. It would likewise explain how various archaea came to possess genes usually found in bacteria.
    Some molecular phylogenetic theorists-among them, Mitchell L. Sogin of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., and Russell E Doolittle (my very distant relative) of the University of California at San Diego-have also invoked lateral gene transfer to explain a long-standing mystery. Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere. Notable in this regard are the genes for the components of two defining eukaryotic features, the cytoskeleton and the system of internal membranes. Sogin and Doolittle suppose that some fourth domain of organisms, now extinct, slipped those surprising genes into the eukaryotic nuclear genome horizontally.

    In truth, microbiologists have long known that bacteria exchange genes horizontally. Gene swapping is clearly how some disease-causing bacteria give the gift of antibiotic resistance to other species of infectious bacteria. But few researchers suspected that genes essential to the very survival of cells traded hands frequently or that lateral transfer exerted great influence on the early history of microbial life. Apparently, we were mistaken.

    0
  36. keiths:
    At the risk of encouraging both of you, here are some relevant Google search results:

    Link

    Thanks Keiths.

    The reason I was looking for this was trying to explain some of the roles of repetitive elements. They may be setting up some sort of Quantum phenomenon.

    The repetitive elements were beautifully vizualized in a bioinformatic tool developed by John Sanford and Josiah Seaman and published in BMC Bionformatics, Springer.

    I briefly worked on the DNA Skittle follow on. Here is what’s left of the project:

    https://www.dnaskittle.com/

    I have since monintored papers that try to explain some of the repetitive elements such as Alu and ERVs, and more data is coming in.

    The Quantum angle is yet another frontier, but even at the Classical Physics level, there was some vindication for Dr. Sanford and LaurieAnn Dent’s hypothesis of resonant vibrations. Dr. Sanford mentioned the idea in passing to James Tour. Nothing came of it, but voila, someone else found it!!! Edmond Chow and Jeffrey Skolnick!

    I report on it here:
    https://crev.info/2017/08/pinpoint-navigation-propulsion-seemingly-random-soup/

    0
  37. stcordova: I lost it, sorry.If I find it, I’ll post.

    I actually was poking around this topic trying to solve a problem for Dr. Sanford!

    I have read more than few on the theme, including the one that concluded that the genetic code is optimal the error free performance…😎

    0
  38. newton: Sogin and Doolittle suppose that some fourth domain of organisms, now extinct, slipped those surprising genes into the eukaryotic nuclear genome horizontally.

    Of course! What else is left if one wants to keep a dogma on life support?

    BTW: experimental scientists like Craig Venter abandoned the idea of common descent because not only makes no sense, it makes their attempts at re-creating some basic steps of evolution impossible…
    How does one make a prokaryotic cell evolve into eukaryotic one?

    ‘If DNA is the software of life, you change the software, you change the hardware..’

    http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/j-craig-venter

    0

  39. keiths: At the risk of encouraging both of you, here are some relevant Google search results:

    Let’s not pretend J-mac has the faintest idea about any actual quantum physics. He likes to blather about quantum mechanics, and Sal likes to play along and encourage him by tossing him a quantum-bone here and there. One has merely to mention the word quantum and J-mac is positively drooling and wagging his tail.

    0
  40. Rumraket: Let’s not pretend J-mac has the faintest idea about any actual quantum physics. He likes to blather about quantum mechanics, and Sal likes to play along and encourage him by tossing him a quantum-bone here and there. One has merely to mention the word quantum and J-mac is positively drooling and wagging his tail.

    At least I try to learn something new and without bias…
    I’m not interested in supporting preconceived notions at any cost…
    That’s why materialism doesn’t appeal to me…

    0
  41. keiths:
    At the risk of encouraging both of you, here are some relevant Google search results:

    Link

    There are some pretty good videos for those who have a hard time believing quantum mechanics…Unfortunately none of them are any good at explaining that time and distance either don’t exist, or don’t matter on subatomic level…😉

    0
  42. J_Mac,

    time and distance either don’t exist, or don’t matter on subatomic level…

    Gee, I wonder what t and r stand for in the Schrödinger equation.

    0
  43. J-Mac: Of course! What else is left if one wants to keep a dogma on life support?

    I agree when one uses a quote which is misleading or ,redundantly, a quote used by creationist website , it smacks of trying to keep a dogma on life support .

    You used Doolittle as an authority . Now he is a hack . Doolittle is advocating , not the miraculous , but a much more complex tree using observed mechanisms for explanation.

    What is your better explanation based on observed mechanisms?

    BTW: experimental scientists like Craig Venter abandoned the idea of common descent because not only makes no sense, it makes their attempts at re-creating some basic steps of evolution impossible…

    Does he or does he advocate multiple lines of common descent?

    How does one make a prokaryotic cell evolve into eukaryotic one?

    No idea, but then not sure how to hit a golf ball straight either. But it does happen. Read the article you quoted, Doolittle has some ideas.

    0
  44. Rumraket: Sal likes to play along and encourage him by tossing him a quantum-bone here and there

    Well, I gotta keep my fan base happy. Speaking of my fan base, where is my one loyal fan, ColeWD these day? God bless him.

    0
  45. stcordova,

    Sorry Sal, none of that is evidence for a 6000 year old Earth.

    You mention a ‘flood model’ – what and where is that? How does it fit in with 200 years of geological observations that so far have totally failed to find any evidence for a global flood in the geological record, and humongous amounts of evidence against it?

    By ignoring just about everything in geology you show total contempt for the science. I presume you get away with that because you don’t know any geology.

    0
  46. faded_Glory: By ignoring just about everything in geology you show total contempt for the science. I presume you get away with that because you don’t know any geology.

    I don’t have contempt for it, and I don’t know any geology relative to you, that’s true. But I have acquaintances who are professors of geology and are YECs like John Whitmore, they seem like decent fellows…

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.