Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

[edwest2]

The problem is this. For those with a rock solid commitment to something happening followed by a scientific explanation for everything, what would a scientist say was an explanation for the following?

Man with withered arm. Stretched it out and it healed instantly.
Man blind from birth given sight.
Man who was dead for some days called out of his burial place alive.
Men with leprosy healed instantly.

The Catholic Answer is that ‘science’ as practiced today has no explanation for such things. If God can create the universe from nothing then he can multiply a few loaves and fishes to feed 5000 people. But, via verbal sleight of hand, we are asked to keep our eyes not on God but on limited human science at all times.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Anybody can examine it right now. Others already have. There’s the physical artifact some have been asking about. It exists. There is no natural explanation for it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Yes it is meaningful to ask after the fact what the chances were. If you were to win the lottery, after the fact people would say “how nice.” If you win the lottery five times in a row, after the fact, people would suspect that chance was somehow not a factor but that some sort of “guidance” or design was.

“Winning five times in a row” presupposes that we were (pr somebody could have been) already looking for a specific outcome of interest before the fact. With regard to evolution, there is no specific outcome of interest or end in mind that anyone could have had before anyone existed.

The fact is that infinitesimally probable events happen all the time. What do you suppose the chances are that someone named ricmat and someone named Leela would be having a conversation on something called The Catholic Answers Forum from the perspective of someone living one hundred years ago? Should the infinitesimal probability of us having this conversation make us doubt that we are actually having this conversation? How low would the probability of this conversation have to be before we would be forced to think that God must have intervened to ensure that our conversation is taking place?

I know that when a plane makes a miraculous landing in the Hudson it is a gift from God, but when a place crashes and leaves bodies and metal strewn all over, isn’t it only infinitesimally probable that the bodies and hunks of metal would land in the exact positions that they did? What should we conclude form the fact that the probability is so miniscule?

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

“Winning five times in a row” presupposes that we were (pr somebody could have been) already looking for a specific outcome of interest before the fact. With regard to evolution, there is no specific outcome of interest or end in mind that anyone could have had before anyone existed.

The fact is that infinitesimally probable events happen all the time. What do you suppose the chances are that someone named ricmat and someone named Leela would be having a conversation on something called The Catholic Answers Forum from the perspective of someone living one hundred years ago? Should the infinitesimal probability of us having this conversation make us doubt that we are actually having this conversation? How low would the probability of this conversation have to be before we would be forced to think that God must have intervened to ensure that our conversation is taking place?

I know that when a plane makes a miraculous landing in the Hudson it is a gift from God, but when a place crashes and leaves bodies and metal strewn all over, isn’t it only infinitesimally probable that the bodies and hunks of metal would land in the exact positions that they did? What should we conclude form the fact that the probability is so miniscule?

Best,
Leela

When these possibilities have parameters or limits it presupposes design.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Are there any scientifically verifiable probability calculations regarding DNA? For example, Lenski’s twenty year experiment to study the micro-evolution of E. Coli to process citrate (see here). Can the ID people perform their calculations to show that it would be expected for E. Coli to acquire this new ability after 20 years? Or does their calculation only apply to show that evolution is wrong, without having any verifiable applications?

 

[buffalo]

Are there any scientifically verifiable probability calculations regarding DNA? For example, Lenski’s twenty year experiment to study the micro-evolution of E. Coli to process citrate (see here). Can the ID people perform their calculations to show that it would be expected for E. Coli to acquire this new ability after 20 years? Or does their calculation only apply to show that evolution is wrong, without having any verifiable applications?

It has been found that bacteria produce nitrous oxide as a defense against antibiotic resistance. This is a major breakthrough in that we will not have to produce new antibiotics. It is simple and has been right under our noses. They have not evolved they simply have a defense mechanism.

 

[Leela]

When these possibilities have parameters or limits it presupposes design.

When what possibilities have limits? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It has been found that bacteria produce nitrous oxide as a defense against antibiotic resistance. This is a major breakthrough in that we will not have to produce new antibiotics. It is simple and has been right under our noses. They have not evolved they simply have a defense mechanism.

Interesting, but I’m not sure how it relates to my question.

ID advocates claim to have the ability to calculate, given a genetic/DNA combination, just how long it would take for that combination to come into existence via evolution. This calculation ability would have tremendous applications in biology, even if just restricted to micro-evolution, for example, the micro-evolution of viruses. So my question is do ID advocates claim to be able to develop these other applications, or do they have some rationale/excuse as to why their calculation ability only applies to untestable macro-evolution and not testable micro-evolution?

 

[NowAgnostic]

Well I’m certainly not afraid to read the book; then again maybe I’m not an “orthodox Darwinist”. But it seems once again that critical thought has left the building. I’m curious if those who trumpet this as evidence that abiogenesis or evolution are false are actually going to address the arguments below, or merely continue to repeat their assertions.

It doesn’t matter what the “odds” are of the initial conditions being such that life would arise. It’s evidence neither for a generic intelligent designer, nor for God. Bear in mind the question is, what is the probability of life arising, given the early state of the universe, and then what is the probability of that type of early state of the universe given the Big Bang/act of Divine creation?

Assuming no God, a generic intelligent designer would also have to have evolved from inanimate matter, and that before life on earth did. Then, that life form would also have to have decided to design life on earth. Clearly the probability of both of these events happening (e.g. life evolving, and then designing other life) is less than that of just one (life evolving). Now of course other evidence, e.g. clear evidence from space that such a designer in fact existed 5 billion years ago, would change the probabilities. But such other evidence doesn’t currently exist.

Assuming an omnipotent God, the probability that life would arise if God willed to create it is, of course, 1. But the real question is, given this early state of the universe, what are the odds, based on that evidence alone, that God willed to create life. Obviously there are two ways for Him to do so: He could arrange the initial conditions such that the “improbable” event of life arising would actually happen. But note that the odds of these initial conditions are exactly the same as in the no God case, because each possible universe still exists as in the no God case, except that God also exists in those universes. Or, God could step in and perform a miracle. Miracles are rare, but there is certainly a non-zero probability of this happening. But this advantage is cancelled out by the need to ask then what are the odds that God, having willed to create life, would create a universe in which a miracle was necessary in order for it to arise, as opposed to one in which life would arise naturally? And the odds actually become less when it is realized that our life forms are following the same chemical and physical laws which exist in the rest of the universe; but there is no need for this to be the case. God could have created life forms which don’t, in fact, follow the physical laws of the universe but operate by their own set.

 

[tjm190]

I’m not sure if your post above was responding to me or another poster, but we are aware of no other forms of life other than those based on DNA.

Yes.

How are you going to come up with a near infinite number of life forms when there are only 10^80 particles in the universe?

I didn’t say lifeforms I said possible types of lifeforms- lifeforms are basically self replicating chemical compounds right?

 

[rossum]

Try specifying the card order. Then shuffle and deal the cards. Say it takes you 60 seconds to shuffle and deal the cards. How long would it take on average to deal the specified order?

And no, not all orders are the same.

How many different ways are there to arrange DNA to make a living organism? We know that there are at least 6 billion different ways to make a human being, and many more ways than that which we do not see - what if we had all been the opposite sex for example.

Yockey (1992) has calculated that there are 2.3e+93 ways to make Cytochrome C, and even more ways to code for it in DNA due to the many to one nature of the DNA to amino acid mapping. That is for just one single protein.

The point is that there is more then one target to search for. In order to correctly calculate the probabilities we need to know how many valid targets and how many invalid targets there are. One things we do know about life is that there are many many different possible targets to hit.

Borel’s Law failed in the shuffling cards example because any possible ordering of the cards was a valid target. With DNA and life we do not yet know how many valid targets there are. That is where the usual creationist use of Borel’s Law fails - we do not yet know all the numbers so any calculations are invalid.

To take the shuffling cards example again. We know that there are many valid orderings of the cards, but not how many. We know that there are many invalid orderings of the cards, but not how many. We are not yet in a position to calculate what the probability of getting a valid ordering is when we shuffle the deck.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

It has been found that bacteria produce nitrous oxide as a defense against antibiotic resistance. This is a major breakthrough in that we will not have to produce new antibiotics. It is simple and has been right under our noses. They have not evolved they simply have a defense mechanism.

That is dishonest. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics using mechanisms other than NO production. No-one (except maybe you) is suggesting that NO production is the sole means of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The use of NO as a defense mechanism against antibiotics is endogenously present in soil bacteria that have to share the same habitat with other antibiotic-producing micro-organisms, depends on an NO-producing enzyme which evolved to confer antibacterial resistance, oxidative stress reduction and pathogenic activity. By the way, it’s nitric oxide not nitrous oxide.

Although the potential for improving antibacterial intervention by interfering with the activity of the genes producing NO synthase is real and exciting, it is both misleading and dangerous to suggest that “we will not have to produce new antibiotics”, because this mechanism is present only in some species of clinically important bacteria, and because other mechanisms of anti-bacterial resistance evolve.

And as others have pointed out, your comment was completely irrelevant to Lenski’s huge experiment on bacterial evolution.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Interesting, but I’m not sure how it relates to my question.

ID advocates claim to have the ability to calculate, given a genetic/DNA combination, just how long it would take for that combination to come into existence via evolution. This calculation ability would have tremendous applications in biology, even if just restricted to micro-evolution, for example, the micro-evolution of viruses. So my question is do ID advocates claim to be able to develop these other applications, or do they have some rationale/excuse as to why their calculation ability only applies to untestable macro-evolution and not testable micro-evolution?

If I understand the question right there is a huge difference - the language of DNA is designed to enable organisms to adapt to their environment. We see now just how fast adaptation happens. We see it in bacteria and we even see it in animals.

The DNA code is so powerful.

Given the above what are we testing for?

 

[buffalo]

That is dishonest. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics using mechanisms other than NO production. No-one (except maybe you) is suggesting that NO production is the sole means of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The use of NO as a defense mechanism against antibiotics is endogenously present in soil bacteria that have to share the same habitat with other antibiotic-producing micro-organisms, depends on an NO-producing enzyme which evolved to confer antibacterial resistance, oxidative stress reduction and pathogenic activity. By the way, it’s nitric oxide not nitrous oxide.

Although the potential for improving antibacterial intervention by interfering with the activity of the genes producing NO synthase is real and exciting, it is both misleading and dangerous to suggest that “we will not have to produce new antibiotics”, because this mechanism is present only in some species of clinically important bacteria, and because other mechanisms of anti-bacterial resistance evolve.

And as others have pointed out, your comment was completely irrelevant to Lenski’s huge experiment on bacterial evolution.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Will you retract the dishonest accusation?

Study exposes how bacteria resist antibiotics

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Scientists have discovered how bacteria fend off a wide range of antibiotics, and blocking that defense mechanism could give existing antibiotics more power to fight dangerous infections.

…Nudler said many companies are testing various nitric oxide-lowering compounds called nitric oxide synthase inhibitors for use as anti-inflammatory drugs.
He thinks a compound in this class could be made to reduce the amount of nitric oxide bacteria can produce, reducing their ability to resist antibiotics. That would mean researchers would not need to discover new antibiotics.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Well I’m certainly not afraid to read the book; then again maybe I’m not an “orthodox Darwinist”. But it seems once again that critical thought has left the building. I’m curious if those who trumpet this as evidence that abiogenesis or evolution are false are actually going to address the arguments below, or merely continue to repeat their assertions.

It doesn’t matter what the “odds” are of the initial conditions being such that life would arise. It’s evidence neither for a generic intelligent designer, nor for God. Bear in mind the question is, what is the probability of life arising, given the early state of the universe, and then what is the probability of that type of early state of the universe given the Big Bang/act of Divine creation?

Assuming no God, a generic intelligent designer would also have to have evolved from inanimate matter, and that before life on earth did. Then, that life form would also have to have decided to design life on earth. Clearly the probability of both of these events happening (e.g. life evolving, and then designing other life) is less than that of just one (life evolving). Now of course other evidence, e.g. clear evidence from space that such a designer in fact existed 5 billion years ago, would change the probabilities. But such other evidence doesn’t currently exist.

Assuming an omnipotent God, the probability that life would arise if God willed to create it is, of course, 1. But the real question is, given this early state of the universe, what are the odds, based on that evidence alone, that God willed to create life. Obviously there are two ways for Him to do so: He could arrange the initial conditions such that the “improbable” event of life arising would actually happen. But note that the odds of these initial conditions are exactly the same as in the no God case, because each possible universe still exists as in the no God case, except that God also exists in those universes. Or, God could step in and perform a miracle. Miracles are rare, but there is certainly a non-zero probability of this happening. But this advantage is cancelled out by the need to ask then what are the odds that God, having willed to create life, would create a universe in which a miracle was necessary in order for it to arise, as opposed to one in which life would arise naturally? And the odds actually become less when it is realized that our life forms are following the same chemical and physical laws which exist in the rest of the universe; but there is no need for this to be the case. God could have created life forms which don’t, in fact, follow the physical laws of the universe but operate by their own set.

Once you accept that there is a designer, the argument moves from science into philosophy? Are you there yet?

Catholics also know that God sustains His creation.

 

[buffalo]

How many different ways are there to arrange DNA to make a living organism? We know that there are at least 6 billion different ways to make a human being, and many more ways than that which we do not see - what if we had all been the opposite sex for example.

Yockey (1992) has calculated that there are 2.3e+93 ways to make Cytochrome C, and even more ways to code for it in DNA due to the many to one nature of the DNA to amino acid mapping. That is for just one single protein.

The point is that there is more then one target to search for. In order to correctly calculate the probabilities we need to know how many valid targets and how many invalid targets there are. One things we do know about life is that there are many many different possible targets to hit.

Borel’s Law failed in the shuffling cards example because any possible ordering of the cards was a valid target. With DNA and life we do not yet know how many valid targets there are. That is where the usual creationist use of Borel’s Law fails - we do not yet know all the numbers so any calculations are invalid.

To take the shuffling cards example again. We know that there are many valid orderings of the cards, but not how many. We know that there are many invalid orderings of the cards, but not how many. We are not yet in a position to calculate what the probability of getting a valid ordering is when we shuffle the deck.

rossum

How many different evolved DNA codes will there be? To explain the DNA molecule is one thing to explain the language that powers it is quite another.

 

[chessmane4e5]

How many different ways are there to arrange DNA to make a living organism? We know that there are at least 6 billion different ways to make a human being, and many more ways than that which we do not see - what if we had all been the opposite sex for example.

Yockey (1992) has calculated that there are 2.3e+93 ways to make Cytochrome C, and even more ways to code for it in DNA due to the many to one nature of the DNA to amino acid mapping. That is for just one single protein.

The point is that there is more then one target to search for. In order to correctly calculate the probabilities we need to know how many valid targets and how many invalid targets there are. One things we do know about life is that there are many many different possible targets to hit.

Borel’s Law failed in the shuffling cards example because any possible ordering of the cards was a valid target. With DNA and life we do not yet know how many valid targets there are. That is where the usual creationist use of Borel’s Law fails - we do not yet know all the numbers so any calculations are invalid.

To take the shuffling cards example again. We know that there are many valid orderings of the cards, but not how many. We know that there are many invalid orderings of the cards, but not how many. We are not yet in a position to calculate what the probability of getting a valid ordering is when we shuffle the deck.

rossum

What I truly love is that we are debating about cards when my original post dealt with the topic at hand. Maybe there was more than one way for life to form. Maybe it was 10, or 100, or a million. Even it was a billion different ways for that first life to form, the math is still ridiculous.

Then with all the experiments that have been done in the past one hundred years, why have we not seen new life again?

 

[Just_Lurking]

If I understand the question right there is a huge difference - the language of DNA is designed to enable organisms to adapt to their environment. We see now just how fast adaptation happens. We see it in bacteria and we even see it in animals.

The DNA code is so powerful.

Given the above what are we testing for?

So you are saying that once a single cell came into existence with this powerful DNA code, the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain from that point on how all the life on Earth we know today came about?

And that the conclusion of all these ID calculations and Borel’s law being discussed in this thread is that the only problem with the theory of evolution is where this first cell came from?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Well I’m certainly not afraid to read the book; then again maybe I’m not an “orthodox Darwinist”. But it seems once again that critical thought has left the building. I’m curious if those who trumpet this as evidence that abiogenesis or evolution are false are actually going to address the arguments below, or merely continue to repeat their assertions.

I am having difficulty even identifying your arguments but I will try and address what you say.

It doesn’t matter what the “odds” are of the initial conditions being such that life would arise. It’s evidence neither for a generic intelligent designer, nor for God. Bear in mind the question is, what is the probability of life arising, given the early state of the universe, and then what is the probability of that type of early state of the universe given the Big Bang/act of Divine creation?

You say the odds do not matter about one thing, but then you want to know about probabilities of something that seems to be related.

To me they are all connected and similar. We are talking about life beginning on Earth, you seem to want to go back even further and talk about the probability of the Big Bang resulting in a Universe that would contain the Earth.

Assuming no God, a generic intelligent designer would also have to have evolved from inanimate matter, and that before life on earth did. Then, that life form would also have to have decided to design life on earth. Clearly the probability of both of these events happening (e.g. life evolving, and then designing other life) is less than that of just one (life evolving). Now of course other evidence, e.g. clear evidence from space that such a designer in fact existed 5 billion years ago, would change the probabilities. But such other evidence doesn’t currently exist.

I do not know of anyone here using a generic intelligent designer argument. Nor I have seen anyone say it would have evolved from inanimate matter. I am confused on this one.

Assuming an omnipotent God, the probability that life would arise if God willed to create it is, of course, 1. But the real question is, given this early state of the universe, what are the odds, based on that evidence alone, that God willed to create life. Obviously there are two ways for Him to do so: He could arrange the initial conditions such that the “improbable” event of life arising would actually happen. But note that the odds of these initial conditions are exactly the same as in the no God case, because each possible universe still exists as in the no God case, except that God also exists in those universes. Or, God could step in and perform a miracle. Miracles are rare, but there is certainly a non-zero probability of this happening. But this advantage is cancelled out by the need to ask then what are the odds that God, having willed to create life, would create a universe in which a miracle was necessary in order for it to arise, as opposed to one in which life would arise naturally? And the odds actually become less when it is realized that our life forms are following the same chemical and physical laws which exist in the rest of the universe; but there is no need for this to be the case. God could have created life forms which don’t, in fact, follow the physical laws of the universe but operate by their own set.

I actually understand what you are trying to say. You are missing one possibility. God could have created everything at anytime He chose. Yesterday, last week, 4 thousand years ago, or 4 billion years ago. Assuming God is omnipotent, He can do what ever He wants.

I may be mistaken but I also think you answered your “real question”, it would be 1. Maybe you need to clarify what “evidence” you are referring to.

Also I see you 2 scenarios as the same. If God arranged for something that is highly unlikely to happen, then I call that a miracle, as well as if God made the impossible happen.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So you are saying that once a single cell came into existence with this powerful DNA code, the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain from that point how all the life on Earth we know today came about?

And that the conclusion of all these ID calculations and Borel’s law is that the only problem with the theory of evolution is where this first cell came from?

I say no to that. There are still many holes in proving that everything evolved from this “first life”.

 

[hecd2]

Will you retract the dishonest accusation?

…Nudler said many companies are testing various nitric oxide-lowering compounds called nitric oxide synthase inhibitors for use as anti-inflammatory drugs.
He thinks a compound in this class could be made to reduce the amount of nitric oxide bacteria can produce, reducing their ability to resist antibiotics. That would mean researchers would not need to discover new antibiotics.

Absolutely not - the claims that you made, originally without citing a source, were exaggerated in several respects:

• That NO was the only defence mechanism against antibiotics
• That bacteria do not evolve other anti-biotic resistant mechanisms
• That that particular mechanism did not evolve
• That all bacteria have it
• That we will not have to produce new antibiotics

Whether the false claims were yours or the journalist’s or a mixture of the two (it seems like the last), they remain false claims.

As I pointed out:

hecd2:

It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics using mechanisms other than NO production. No-one (except maybe you) is suggesting that NO production is the sole means of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The use of NO as a defense mechanism against antibiotics is endogenously present in soil bacteria that have to share the same habitat with other antibiotic-producing micro-organisms, depends on an NO-producing enzyme which evolved to confer antibacterial resistance, oxidative stress reduction and pathogenic activity. By the way, it’s nitric oxide not nitrous oxide.

Although the potential for improving antibacterial intervention by interfering with the activity of the genes producing NO synthase is real and exciting, it is both misleading and dangerous to suggest that “we will not have to produce new antibiotics”, because this mechanism is present only in some species of clinically important bacteria, and because other mechanisms of anti-bacterial resistance evolve.

And as others have pointed out, your comment was completely irrelevant to Lenski’s huge experiment on bacterial evolution.

My source:

Gusarov et al, Endogenous Nitric Oxide Protects Bacteria Against a Wide Spectrum of Antibiotics, Science 325, 1380 - 1384 (2009).

This is the paper reporting the research. Have you read it? It concludes as follows:

“Our results show that bacteria use NOS [nitric oxide synthase] as a part of their defense system against other microorganisms. Because the pathogens, including B. anthracis and S. aureus, have NOS, which protects them against antibiotics and immune attack, the inhibition of this enzyme could serve as an effective antibacterial intervention.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com