Darwin,Dawkins etc are wrong. Design is real.

A)

Professor  Richard  Dawkins  is  one  of  the world’s  most out-spoken  atheist.

He  acknowledges  that  Darwin’s  Theory  of   Evolution  played   an  important  role  in consolidating  his atheistic  worldview.

He  is  profiled  in  Wikipedia  at :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

The  following  are  abstracts  from  the  Wikipedia  article.

“In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—a fixed false belief.[5] As of January 2010 the English-language version has sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages”.[6]

“Dawkins states: “the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing.””[9]

“Dawkins wrote:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.

B)

The  Theory   of  Evolution  allows  Dawkins  to  be  a  satisfied  atheist  because  it  purports  to  give  an  explanation  for  the  “appearance  of  design” in  complex  bodies  of  living  organisms  without the  need  for a designer.

  According  to  evolutionary  theory   the  bodies  of  living  organisms  were  fashioned  by  the  process  of   natural  selection. For  example  the  streamline  shape  of  fish  resulted  from the advantage  that  this  form  gave  to  organisms  which  lived  in water . In  evolutionary   theory, over  vast periods  of  time , whatever  the  initial  form  of  organisms  which  lived  in water,  a  more  streamline  shape  will  be  “selected”  in each  generation  as  slight   differences  in  the hereditary  (genetic)  composition    of  the  organisms  (produced  by random undirected  events) provide  the  raw  material  upon  which  natural  selection  acts  to  select  the  best  adapted.  

But  if  the  above  process  were  could  it  occur  without  a  designer ? 

To  answer  that  question  we  will  have  to  look  at  the  nature  of   living  organisms  and  information  theory.

C)

Living  Organisms, Evolutionary  Theory  and Information

What  is  a  living  organism  ?

Professor Freeman Dyson  gives  a  definition  at :
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson_ad/dyson_ad_index.html

“For the purposes of this discussion, life is defined as a material system that can acquire, store, process, and use information to organize its activities. In this broad view, the essence of life is information, but information is not synonymous with life. To be alive, a system must not only hold information but process and use it. It is the active use of information, and not the passive storage, that constitutes life”.

What  is  information ?

Researcher   and  author   David  Abel  of  the  “Origin  of  Life  Foundation ”  states   at:

http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html

Semantic (meaningful) information has two subsets: Descriptive and Prescriptive. Prescriptive Information (PI) instructs or directly produces nontrivial formal function (Abel, 2009a). Merely describing a computer chip does not prescribe or produce that chip. Thus mere description needs to be dichotomized from prescription. Computationally halting cybernetic programs and linguistic instructions are examples of Prescriptive Information. “Prescriptive Information (PI) either tells us what choices to make, or it is a recordation of wise choices already made.” (Abel, 2009a)

Where  does  information  come  from ?

The  Stanford  Encylopedia  of  Philosophy  is  cautious  about  the  concept  of  information  in biological  systems  but   comments  on  the  prescriptive  information  in living  organisms  at :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

At this point, however, it is important to note that there are two ways in which richer notions of information can be introduced. One possibility is to argue that genes and other biological structures literally carry semantic information, and their informational character explains the distinctive role of these structures in biological processes. Another possibility is to treat the appeal to meaning and information as an analogical one. Here the idea is that language, coding systems, computer programs and other paradigmatically information-exploiting systems can serve as useful models for biological systems. If we take this second route, our task then is to identify the similarities between the cases of semantic phenomena used as models and the biological systems we seek to understand, and to show how those similarities are informative. If we think of genes or cells as literally carrying semantic information, our problem changes. Paradigm cases of structures with semantic information — pictures, sentences, programs — are built by the thought and action of intelligent agents. So we need to show how genes and cells — neither intelligent systems themselves nor the products of intelligence — can carry semantic information, and how the information they carry explains their biological role. We need some kind of reductive explanation of semantic information (arguably, we need this to understand cognition, too). One place we might look for such an analysis is naturalistic philosophy of mind.

David  Abel  states  that  the laws  of  physics  and  chemistry  have  never  been  demonstrated  to  produce  prescriptive  information.  

He  refers  to  the production  of  prescriptive  information  as   “the  Cybernetic  Cut”.  The  DNA  molecule  is  an  example  of  prescriptive  information.  It  uses  symbols (purine  and pyrimidine  bases)  within  a  syntax  to  code  for  amino  acids  from which  proteins  are made.  Formalism  refers  to  the  use  of  symbols (like  the alphabet)  within  a  syntax (  e.g the  English  language)  to  produce  meaning.  This  is  not  a  physical  process  but  is  placed  in physical  media  eg  on paper  or  computer  screens The  symbols  are  meaningless  without  the  language  and  cannot  or  have  never  been  demonstrated  on their  own to  produce  language  and  meaning.  That  is to say , it  has  never  been demonstrated  that  the  physical  symbols  of  the alphabet  can produce  the  syntax   of  a  language :

http://www.scitopics.com/The_Cybernetic_Cut.html

Thus a Configurable Switch (CS) Bridge traverses The Cybernetic Cut. The essence of The Cybernetic Cut principle is that traffic flow is unidirectional across this CS Bridge from formalism to physicality. Falsifying The Cybernetic Cut would require nothing more than demonstrating a bidirectional flow across the CS Bridge. Thus far, no one has ever observed physicality instructing, programming, or instituting non trivial formal organization and function.

 

D)


The following  studies  show  that  Darwin’s  observation  of  change  in  the  beaks  of  the  Finches  on the  Galapagos  islands was  in  fact  the  result  of  regulation  of  the  expression  of  the  prescriptive  information  in  the  birds  not  due  to  change  in genetic  make-up. The  finches  are  nonetheless   still  used  in  textbooks  as  a  classic   example  of  evolution.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15353802

Science. 2004 Sep 3;305(5689):1462-5.

Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin’s finches.

Source

Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Abstract

Darwin’s finches are a classic example of species diversification by natural selection. Their impressive variation in beak morphology is associated with the exploitation of a variety of ecological niches, but its developmental basis is unknown. We performed a comparative analysis of expression patterns of various growth factors in species comprising the genus Geospiza. We found that expression of Bmp4 in the mesenchyme of the upper beaks strongly correlated with deep and broad beak morphology. When misexpressed in chicken embryos, Bmp4 caused morphological transformations paralleling the beak morphology of the large ground finch G. magnirostris.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v94/n2/full/6800618a.html.

News and Commentary

Heredity (2005) 94, 141–142. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800618 Publised online 10 November 2004

Evodevo: Darwin’s finch beaks, Bmp4, and the developmental origins of novelty

B Sinervo1

1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Earth and Marine Sciences Building, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

Correspondence: B Sinervo, e-mail: sinervo@biology.ucsc.edu

“These findings elucidate the developmental origin of an adaptive radiation that serves as the textbook example of evolution. More importantly, it brings us one step closer to understanding how morphological diversity can be achieved with a minimum amount of informational change. The fact that the same growth factor, when applied to mesenchyme versus ectoderm, can achieve completely opposite morphologies provides us with a partial answer to the paradox of the genome. How can the complex morphology of a human require only the coordinated expression of 30 000 genes? The combination of heterochronic and heterotopic changes in the regulation of single genes provides an infinite set of topological shifts to evolve a limitless set of morphological diversity”.

E)

Researchers  have found  that  the  finches’  beaks  vary  with  rainfall  and  revert  to  their  original  shapes  when  the  weather  conditions  change.

F)

In summary :

1. Evolutionary  Theory  claims  to  provide  a  mechanism  for  the design  of   the  bodies  of  living  organisms  without  the  need  for  a  designer . Richard  Dawkins  claims  that  the  theory  makes  it  possible  to  be an intellectually  satisfied  atheist.

2. The  essential  characteristic  of  living  organisms  is  that  they  possess  and  manipulate  prescriptive  information.

3. Prescriptive  information  has  never  been  shown  to  arise  other  than by  the  input  of  an  intellect.

4, A  classic  textbook  example  of   evolution –  the   alteration  in  the  beaks  of  the finches  on  the  Galapagos  islands  –  is  due  to  regulation  of  prescriptive  information.

5. The  most  likely  cause  of  living  organisms –  in fact  the  only  cause  that  we  presently  know  can  account  for  both  living  organisms  and  their  change  in form  –  is  an intellect,

6. Atheists like  D  Richard  Dawkins  still  have  a some  way  to  go  to  be  intellectually  satisfied.

\

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Atheist Morality, Charles Darwin, Cybernetic Cut, Design, evolution, Finches, Richard Dawkins, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s