I have been thinking about the Big Bang again. As you do.
I noticed the other day that Richard Dawkins quietly said [in hope that no one would ask him to explain, because i suspect he doesn't know what this means] that the original universe came from nothing by a 'quantum fluctuation'.
a quantum fluctuation can be defined as;
In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Now, a change in what energy? you cant have a change in something that didnt exist. there was nothing before the big bang.
Another point, if nothing existed before the big bang, where was the geographical location of the quantum fluctuation? There simply wasn't any place in which the fluctuation could occur.
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Friday, 14 February 2014
The impossibility of the creation of the universe via the big bang
Impossibility of the ‘Big Bang’
The big bang theory has interwoven in its fabric, a thread of its own annihilation.
Here’s how,
We are told that nothing existed before the big bang occurred, not even time.
We are therefore to assume that the arrow of time was only able to begin its flight at the very instance of the creation of the universe.
So what is time and how is it essential for change?
Time is the interval between one state and a future state.
So, in order to get from existing state a to a future state b we must have the enabling mechanism of time for this change to occur.
So, before the big bang there was nothing, not even time.
Therefore, it would be impossible to go from the state of no universe to a state of universe if the enabling mechanism of time did not pre exist the beginning of the universe.
I.e it is impossible, without time, to go from a state of nothing to a state of something.
Therefore if time had not existed before the universe existed the universe could never have come into being.
Sunday, 9 February 2014
Irreducible complexity
One of the arguments used by creationists, for a non evolutionary explanation of complex systems in living organisms, is the assumption of ‘irreducible complexity’. That is, any complex system consisting of many dependent parts, could not have arisen piece by piece. You have to have all the bits in place at any one time for the system to work. Take away some of the bits or even one of the bits and the whole system stops functioning.
Therefore, the drip by drip, mutation by mutation, explanation leading to the gradual acquisition of the whole complex system could not have occurred. On the face of it this is quite a strong argument for a designer who could easily create such complex systems instantaneously.
So, being an evolutionist, I was full of anticipation when I began watching a lecture on You Tube by Prof. Kenneth Miller entitled ‘The Collapse of Intelligent Design’.
Professor Miller promised that in the lecture he would show that irreducible complexity did not exist, and this truth would lead to the repudiation of an intelligent designer.
While listening to the lecture I began to realise that the arguments that Prof.Miller was putting forward for the non existence of ‘irreducible complexity’ were very feeble and in one case non scientific.
Prof. Miller concerned himself with two examples that are often used by creationists to demonstrate irreducible complexity. These arguments concern the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade of interacting enzymes.
Let’s take the bacterial flagellum argument first.
Prof.Miller was feeling very generous [suspiciously too generous in my opinion] when he proposed taking away ‘not a few proteins, but taking away 40 of the 50 proteins that make up the flagellum to see if the 10 remaining proteins have any useful function for the bacterium’
Well, as Prof. Miller pointed out the 10 remaining proteins make up the ‘type 3 secretory system’ of the bacterium. This system acts as a molecular syringe for the bacterium. So it would appear that we can reduce the complex system of the flagellum and what remains is not useless, but has a function for the bacterium. Therefore, the concept of irreducible complexity collapses. But, let’s pause for a minute and examine Prof. Miller’s apparent generosity in removing so many proteins. I am not sure that this is as generous as it seems. In order to show that irreducible complexity is false, it is not good enough to remove a quantum of proteins that you already know, will leave you with a viable complex of proteins which, ipso facto, proves your case.
What we need to do is to remove 7 or 11or 32 or some other number of proteins and see if what is left has a viable use for the bacterium. Would each stage in the possible/probable evolution of the flagellum have an independent viable use? Maybe they would, but it’s doubtful that they would. However, this would be a fairer test of the validity of irreducible complexity than the one Prof Miller used.
Now for the other argument he used, that is, the cascade of many enzymes to bring about the clotting of blood at the site of a wound. Creationist would argue that you need all of the enzymes in the right place and in the right order for blood to clot. You can’t creep up on this system bit by bit or mutation by mutation. It’s all or nothing.
This is a very strong intellectual argument for ‘irreducible complexity’.
So, Prof Miller suggested we take away factor 12 of the clotting mechanism and see what happens. Factor 12 is essential for the clotting of terrestrial mammalian blood.
It was at this point Miller’s argument departs from basic scientific procedure. It’s absolutely essential that in any experiment, even in a thought experiment, that you only change one variable at a time.
But Prof. Millar changes two variables, and its mind boggling that he has the cheek to do so.
He didn’t propose the removal of factor 12 from the blood clotting mechanism of a terrestrial mammal, thereby changing one variable, but he proposed changing the species as well. Thus changing two variables.
His argument went like this, if you look at the blood clotting cascade of a WHALE or DOLPHIN!!!! You find that factor 12 is missing.
So, he now cites a marine mammal which doesn’t have the factor 12 but has a perfectly good blood clotting mechanism. This was to show that you don’t need factor 12 for blood to clot!!
Of course you don’t need factor 12 if the blood clots without it and has done for thousands of years.
However, it gets worse. Professor Millar now suggests that we can show that irreducible complexity doesn’t exist by removing several other enzymes as well as factor 12.
This time he doesn’t jump species he jumps classes and cites the PUFFER FISH. This fish doesn’t have factor 12 and doesn’t have some of the other blood clotting enzymes found in terrestrial mammals. But lo and behold, the puffer fish has perfectly good clotting blood.
As far as the blood clotting cascade is concerned, in order to bring about the collapse of irreducibility, we have to demonstrate that each of the possible evolutionary phases of the cascade, bestowed on the recipient, some kind of survival factor. Eventually of course, resulting in a full blown blood clotting mechanism.
It’s simply not good enough to cite another blood clotting system which doesn’t have the enzyme in the first place.
As evolutionists, if we are to prove the falsehood of irreducible complexity, we have to demonstrate that a complex system could arrive bit by bit and that each step in its evolution bestowed a selective advantage on the recipient. If it didn’t, then it wouldn’t be selected for by the process of natural selection
We evolutionists need to come up with lot better arguments than Prof Miller’s before irreducible complexity collapses.
Epicurus
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Are fossils proof positive of evolution ?
I have just re-listened to the contribution of Richard Dawkins to the oxford union debate on evolution and creation that took place in 1986. During the debate a member of the audience asked Richard Dawkins a very pertinent question, and I quote,
“This despatch box bears a great resemblance to that despatch box and the difference between them is very slight. Are we to deduce then, this despatch box evolved from that despatch box?”
Professor Dawkins paused for several seconds and then uttered something that truly reflected his position although he wasn’t really aware of it and I quote.
“Madam President, I am simply at a loss“
He also went on to say.
“What has this got to do with evolution?”
Well the point is that the inference in the original question, that just because two things are similar in form, does not prove they are related, and this does have a lot to do with evolution.
The way the question was phrased, it was obvious to me that the member who asked the question was aware of the powerful and insurmountable philosophical objection to fossils being proof positive of the process of evolution. What we do see in fossils is a ‘formal’ relationship.
I.e one set of fossils in one stratigraphic layer bears a resemblance, albeit with minor changes, to fossils in higher or lower strata.
That is, fossils in different layers are similar in form, just as the two despatch boxes were similar in form. However, the important question is, do the fossils have a ‘temporal’ relationship? Are they actually related one to another?
Did one evolve into the other?
As an evolutionist I believe that they did, but the operative word here is believe. I don’t know that they are related, and there is no way of proving that they were.
We cannot apply the scientific method to the fossils and determine whether they are related and that one evolved into the other.
This critique of the so called fossil ‘record’ is well established and taught in colleges of education, at least it was so in my case.
The thing that really concerns me here is that you could tell from his response to the despatch box question, that Professor Dawkins was not aware of this standard philosophical objection to the assertion that fossils are proof of evolution. They are not.
Epicurus
miraculous Evo-Devo and HOX genes
I kind of caught the phrase evo-devo [evolutionary development] from somewhere, and when I first heard it I had a sneaky feeling it was going to be interesting.
Having now spent several weeks getting my head around the new genetic science of evo-devo and more importantly the implications of ‘evo-devo’ I can now say it’s much more than just interesting. It’s mind boggling.
It’s implications for the standard models of evolutionary philosophy and theories are devastating.
When I begin to thinking of evo-devo, I find it is so fantastic; that it is hard to believe that it is a proven theory, and that it is backed up with accepted, peer reviewed, experimentation.
Anyway, here goes.
What has been discovered are sets of regulatory master genes [180 base pairs] that control the development of the embryo. Not just one type of embryo but many types of embryo.
these genes, by the way have been named HOX genes. They appear to be transcriptors which produce proteins that bind to D.N.A and are capable of turning genes on and off to varying degrees. This allows the development of the embryo to proceed in an ordered fashion.
Still not impressed? Hang on. Let’s take one set of HOX genes that control the development of the eye of the fruit fly Drosophila. The HOX genes control the development of the eye in such a way that the fly ends up with a nice set of compound eyes. [Sometimes there is a mutation in this HOX gene and the poor fly ends up with a leg growing where its eye should be], anyway that’s not as interesting as to what comes next.
The HOX genes for the fruit fly eye have been fully identified and their base sequences are fully understood. There has also been research into HOX genes in other animals such as the mouse. Sure enough there is a HOX gene for the mouse’s eye that regulates the development of a typically mammalian eye for the mouse.
BUT, and it’s massive BUT, the HOX gene that regulates and controls the development of the insect eye is EXACTLY the same as the HOX gene that regulates and controls the development of the mammalian eye !!!!
[The HOX eye gene has been taken from the fruit fly and inserted into the genome of the mouse and the mouse ends up with a normal mouse eye]
I have to pause here for a moment as I take in all of the implications of all this.
Firstly, the invertebrates and the vertebrates parted company 0.65 billion years ago. That means the HOX eye gene of the invertebrate and vertebrates have lead independent existences for 0.65 billion years but there has been no change in all that time. There has been no retained mutation in either mouse HOX or fly HOX genes in all that time.
[We evolutionist argue that random mutation drives evolution, but here we have a gene that can regulate the development of all the different eyes found in the animal kingdom but has not undergone any retained mutations. It has remained the same for at least .65 billion years in both vertebrates and invertebrates.]
A standard evolutionary explanation for the evolution of the eye would go something like this,
Animals with primitive eyes would generate variation by random genetic mutation. The variants would be subjected to natural selection and drip by drip, mutation by mutation you end up with the brilliant eye of the cephalopods or a bit down the excellence scale, our own eye .
But with evo-devo and the existence of the universal and incorruptible, long lived HOX gene you no longer need the drip drip effect of mutations.
The genetic information for all eyes has been in existence as far back as the common ancestor of the invertebrates and vertebrates.
If that’s not mind blowing I don’t know what is?
The very long and stable life of the HOX eye gene suggests it’s very resistant to mutation. It has remained exactly the same for at least 0.65 BILLION years.
The big question is, how did this highly conservative in- corruptible gene get here in the first place?
We might argue that it arrived by mutation and natural selection up until about 0.65 billion years ago and then remained incorruptible from then until now. Considering the immense stability of the HOX genes over 100s of millions of years, this explanation looks very shaky. One important thing to consider is that to get from primitive to advanced specialised eyes you don’t need an endless stream of mutations, you just need the HOX gene turning other genes on and off to varying degrees.
It could also be argued thatDarwin
Darwin
No one has ever made any objective tests to ascertain whether the finches are in fact separate species. He and we just accept that they are. They have to be separate species if we are to believe that evolution has taken place.
The existence of the different finch morphs, however, may be just a manifestation of bill plasticity controlled by a HOX gene. They might not be separate species at all.
The beaks of the finches have varying degrees of bony base overlaid with keratin giving them a variety of shape and robustness. Research in evo-devo shows that the amount of bone laid down in the beak is controlled by a HOX gene. [Experiments on embryonic chicken chicks involving the turning off and on of the HOX gene that controls the deposition of bone, results in a whole multitude of beak types similar in range toDarwin
PerhapsDarwin
Don’t you think it’s a tad weird that the HOX gene that initiates and controls the development of the mammalian eye existed before the mammals had evolved?
Both evolutionists and creationist can take comfort from the HOX gene phenomenon.
The commonality of the HOX gene is evidence for a common ancestor for many organisms.
BUT, we could argue that they are evidence of a truly intelligent designer.
"Yes you can have eyes, as many kinds as you want but don’t expect me to re invent each one, you can have the HOX gene as a template and use it create as many eyes as you want”
God.
I know you will be interested in ‘evo-devo’.
I kind of caught the phrase evo-devo [evolutionary development] from somewhere, and when I first heard it I had a sneaky feeling it was going to be interesting.
Having now spent several weeks getting my head around the new genetic science of evo-devo and more importantly the implications of ‘evo-devo’ I can now say it’s much more than just interesting. It’s mind boggling.
It’s implications for the standard models of evolutionary philosophy and theories are devastating.
When I begin to thinking of evo-devo, I find it is so fantastic; that it is hard to believe that it is a proven theory, and that it is backed up with accepted, peer reviewed, experimentation.
Anyway, here goes.
What has been discovered are sets of regulatory master genes [180 base pairs] that control the development of the embryo. Not just one type of embryo but many types of embryo.
these genes, by the way have been named HOX genes. They appear to be transcriptors which produce proteins that bind to D.N.A and are capable of turning genes on and off to varying degrees. This allows the development of the embryo to proceed in an ordered fashion.
Still not impressed? Hang on. Let’s take one set of HOX genes that control the development of the eye of the fruit fly Drosophila. The HOX genes control the development of the eye in such a way that the fly ends up with a nice set of compound eyes. [Sometimes there is a mutation in this HOX gene and the poor fly ends up with a leg growing where its eye should be], anyway that’s not as interesting as to what comes next.
The HOX genes for the fruit fly eye have been fully identified and their base sequences are fully understood. There has also been research into HOX genes in other animals such as the mouse. Sure enough there is a HOX gene for the mouse’s eye that regulates the development of a typically mammalian eye for the mouse.
BUT, and it’s massive BUT, the HOX gene that regulates and controls the development of the insect eye is EXACTLY the same as the HOX gene that regulates and controls the development of the mammalian eye !!!!
[The HOX eye gene has been taken from the fruit fly and inserted into the genome of the mouse and the mouse ends up with a normal mouse eye]
I have to pause here for a moment as I take in all of the implications of all this.
Firstly, the invertebrates and the vertebrates parted company 0.65 billion years ago. That means the HOX eye gene of the invertebrate and vertebrates have lead independent existences for 0.65 billion years but there has been no change in all that time. There has been no retained mutation in either mouse HOX or fly HOX genes in all that time.
[We evolutionist argue that random mutation drives evolution, but here we have a gene that can regulate the development of all the different eyes found in the animal kingdom but has not undergone any retained mutations. It has remained the same for at least .65 billion years in both vertebrates and invertebrates.]
A standard evolutionary explanation for the evolution of the eye would go something like this,
Animals with primitive eyes would generate variation by random genetic mutation. The variants would be subjected to natural selection and drip by drip, mutation by mutation you end up with the brilliant eye of the cephalopods or a bit down the excellence scale, our own eye .
But with evo-devo and the existence of the universal and incorruptible, long lived HOX gene you no longer need the drip drip effect of mutations.
The genetic information for all eyes has been in existence as far back as the common ancestor of the invertebrates and vertebrates.
If that’s not mind blowing I don’t know what is?
The very long and stable life of the HOX eye gene suggests it’s very resistant to mutation. It has remained exactly the same for at least 0.65 BILLION years.
The big question is, how did this highly conservative in- corruptible gene get here in the first place?
We might argue that it arrived by mutation and natural selection up until about 0.65 billion years ago and then remained incorruptible from then until now. Considering the immense stability of the HOX genes over 100s of millions of years, this explanation looks very shaky. One important thing to consider is that to get from primitive to advanced specialised eyes you don’t need an endless stream of mutations, you just need the HOX gene turning other genes on and off to varying degrees.
It could also be argued that
No one has ever made any objective tests to ascertain whether the finches are in fact separate species. He and we just accept that they are. They have to be separate species if we are to believe that evolution has taken place.
The existence of the different finch morphs, however, may be just a manifestation of bill plasticity controlled by a HOX gene. They might not be separate species at all.
The beaks of the finches have varying degrees of bony base overlaid with keratin giving them a variety of shape and robustness. Research in evo-devo shows that the amount of bone laid down in the beak is controlled by a HOX gene. [Experiments on embryonic chicken chicks involving the turning off and on of the HOX gene that controls the deposition of bone, results in a whole multitude of beak types similar in range to
Perhaps
Don’t you think it’s a tad weird that the HOX gene that initiates and controls the development of the mammalian eye existed before the mammals had evolved?
Both evolutionists and creationist can take comfort from the HOX gene phenomenon.
The commonality of the HOX gene is evidence for a common ancestor for many organisms.
BUT, we could argue that they are evidence of a truly intelligent designer.
"Yes you can have eyes, as many kinds as you want but don’t expect me to re invent each one, you can have the HOX gene as a template and use it create as many eyes as you want”
God.
Global warming……. What Global warming?
· Lying in bed listening to the Today programme I was awakened from my slumbering by one of the programme’s headlines.
“Official British government statistics claim that the average global change in world temperatures in the past 20 years has been 0 degrees. The predicted change for the next decade was MINUS .3 degrees” [2011]
· Latest Met office statistics claim that over the last 16 years there has been no rise in global temperatures. [2012]
· A climate gate scientist wrote in an e mail
“We can’t find any warming and it’s a travesty that we can’t “
“The weak shall go to the wall” is a tragic misconception.
[A view or opinion that is incorrect because it is based on faulty thinking or understanding]
We have all probably heard the phrase; the weak shall go to the wall. It is often said with a resigned, sad intonation.
The implication in the phrase is that, sadly, weak people will go to the wall or perish and that is the way of the universe and not much can be done about it. Inevitably the strong survive and the weak will perish.
I suppose I interpreted the phrase much the same way, until one day I visited Dode Church in Kent
The church at Dode was built during the reign of William II of England at some point between 1087 and 1100.
Dode church was not used for worship since the village of Dode
Now; in the wall opposite the door were several seats let into the wall. They were just hollow places in
the wall which provided a rudimentary seat. A little plaque above these seats stated that
“The seats in the wall were provide
for the elderly and infirm which gave rise to the phrase, the weak shall go to the wall”
This really was mind blowing for me. [I am easily impressed].The original phrase, with its original meaning from Dode, is the complete opposite to the general held view of ‘the weak shall go to the wall’. It isn’t inevitable that the weak shall perish but the complete opposite, the weak will be cared for and seats and
Support provided for them. The mindset that it is inevitable that the weak will perish is based on a fallacy.
Global warming……. What Global warming?
· Lying in bed listening to the Today programme I was awakened from my slumbering by one of the programme’s headlines.
“Official British government statistics claim that the average global change in world temperatures in the past 20 years has been 0 degrees. The predicted change for the next decade was MINUS .3 degrees” [2011]
· Latest Met office statistics claim that over the last 16 years there has been no rise in global temperatures. [2012]
· A climate gate scientist wrote in an e mail
“We can’t find any warming and it’s a travesty that we can’t “
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)