Intelligent Fine Molecular Tuning By Brian Simpson

A paper has been published which goes against the present rule that there shall be no criticisms of evolutionism. The paper supports intelligent design, but that is my interpretation.

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/breakout-paper-in-journal-of-theoretical-biology-explicitly-supports-intelligent-design/?fbclid=IwAR3cdOLrDwzQ0qqqJXnOt72wlJEtpuZd27RTbBHTPdr_htnlNfLJwbvYtyE

“As John West noted here last week, the Journal of Theoretical Biology has published an explicitly pro-intelligent design article, “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.” Let’s take a closer look at the contents. The paper is math-heavy, discussing statistical models of making inferences, but it is also groundbreaking for this crucial reason: it considers and proposes intelligent design, by name, as a viable explanation for the origin of “fine-tuning” in biology. This is a major breakthrough for science, but also for freedom of speech. If the paper is any indication, appearing as it does in a prominent peer-reviewed journal, some of the suffocating constraints on ID advocacy may be coming off.

The authors are Steinar Thorvaldsen, a professor of information science at the University of Tromsø in Norway, and Ola Hössjer, a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University. The paper, which is open access, begins by noting that while fine-tuning is widely discussed in physics, it needs to be considered more in the context of biology.”

https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review-life-is-fine-tuned.html

“Steinar Thorvaldsen of Norway’s University of Tromsø and Ola Hössjer of Stockholm University ask a simple question: Can we detect “fine-tuning” in biology as we can in physics? In other words, do the chemistry and construction of living things give Darwinian evolution any “wiggle room” for mistakes and do-overs, or are they precise? Will they, like a puzzle piece, only fit in one place, one way?

Employing a lot of math, math too complicated for me to understand or articulate, the authors answer the question. Their use and definition of “fine-tuning” will sound familiar to anyone familiar with the language and work of the intelligent design movement. Something in biology can be described as “fine-tuned,” they say, if it is “unlikely to have occurred by chance” and if it conforms to “an independent or detached specification.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002251932030312X?via%253Dihub

“Fine-tuning has received much attention in physics, and it states that the fundamental constants of physics are finely tuned to precise values for a rich chemistry and life permittance. It has not yet been applied in a broad manner to molecular biology. However, in this paper we argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking. We also discuss the statistical methods underpinning fine-tuning and present a framework for such analysis.”

The rest of the paper is full of math, but that is enough for us, to know that at least one paper has argued that the random mutations and natural selection, does not go too far.   

 

 

Comments

No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Friday, 29 March 2024

Captcha Image