The reference is:
Mulkidjanian AY, Makarova KS, Galperin MY, Koonin EV. Inventing the dynamo machine: the evolution of the F-type and V-type ATPases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007 Nov;5(11):892-9. Review. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro1767
Don’t know why the link I gave in my previous post doesn’t work for you, it works for me in multiple different browsers. It’s directly to the .pdf link on google scholar.
@Roy’s link worked - thank you! Thanks, Mikkel. I don’t know what was going on with the link last night, but it just brought up some weird gobbledygook.
It is still an opinion. Calling it a fact does not make it a fact.
here is one interesting case:
"Maler notes that to create an electric organ, many genetic changes have to happen — and each one on its own wouldn’t seem to be advantageous for the fish. For example, a muscle that loses its ability to contract is a pretty lousy muscle.
“You have to simultaneously co-evolve genes that do very many different things in some kind of directed manner. It [can’t just] be random,” says Maler. “And that’s hard to understand. They’ve raised the problem beautifully in this paper.”
Then you need to go back through time and demonstrate that those changes would not have been advantageous. You need to support this claim if you are going to use it. Empty assertions aren’t worth much.
I think that the Einstein’s statements I provide at 126 support beyond any doubts that he thought that a « superior mind » was behind the workings of nature. You disagree. Okay, that’s not a big deal. Now, I would like to know what is your own position regarding the following statement: « only scientific illiterate people would find any evidence for design, goal or purpose anywhere in the natural world »?
If Einstein had said that there was no design in nature, would you accept that as evidence there was no design in nature? If not, I don’t see the point in your argument. I don’t see why someone’s opinion is being taken as factual evidence.
So have you read the paper? What paper is it?
You are wrong, not me. Evolutionists do assert that evolution is a blind, unguided process.
Take for example Futuyma’s quote at 121. There, he says the following :
« Above all, Darwin’s theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with “Why?”
Or take the statement below of 38 Nobel prize winners according to which “evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided process of random variation and natural selection.” (www.2.1jworld.com/news/2005/sep/15
Another goalpost move. You’ve gone from what Einstein saw evidence of to what he thought.
Despite me putting the record straight, there has been no progress, only diversion sideways.
It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of factuality. Einstein did not explicitly claim to have seen evidence for a superior mind. You are wrong, and that you refuse to admit it is a big deal, because it renders you not worth wasting time on.
Because he has no factual evidence.
they gave no reference so its hard to tell.
There’s even a Wikipedia entry on this:
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein
I don’t see that as supporting your claim.
- Futuyma doesn’t say it’s unguided.
- There’s a difference between being guided by an intelligent agent towards a specific goal vs being guided by feedback towards anything that works. I’m sure the Nobel Laureates would understand that distinction that you are equivocating over.
- Your link doesn’t work. I think you copied it from here without bothering to read the linked article or even check there was a linked article. You’re lucky the quote was genuine.
That last one means the only response necessary to any reference you provide is “Have you read it?” Because you obviously didn’t read that one, couldn’t possibly know what it (originally) said, and have no idea whether its now-unavailable contents matched your claim. The same may be true of any other reference you provide.
It depends on the evidences he would have been able to present. But most likely, the answer would be no.
If you want to understand the point, please go to post 133.
I would say that we OBSERVE that the results of experiments are consistent with blind variation acted on by blind natural selection. Two of those experiments are . . .
Luria and Delbruck, fluctuation assay:
reference
Joshua and Esther Lederberg, plate replica experiment:
reference
What experiments have shown us is that the process that produce mutations are blind to the needs of the organism within the confines of scientific testing. On top of that, natural selection is blind to genotype. Natural selection isn’t selecting for a specific mutation. Natural selection is focused on phenotype.
It’s often not a good idea to rely on Wikipedia for matters involving views on origins.
And it is the case here since Einstein denied being either an atheist or a pantheist: for example, he said: « I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.
Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 48
And here are 2 quotes from Einstein that support my claim according to which he believed that a superior mind was behind the workings of nature:
« Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble »
Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 93
« My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God »
Albert Einstein, The quotable Einstein. Ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 195-6.
You’re wrong again, for regarding scientific matters, saying that Einstein thought «something » is equivalent of saying that he saw evidence for this thing. Why? Because as far as scientific matters are concerned, he would not believe something that is not grounded by some scientific evidences.
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that you will, unreasonably, deny this equivalence. But again, this is not a big deal.
Now, let’s go back to my original statement which was that « many prominent scientists, including Einstein, explicitly claimed to have seen evidence for a superior mind in the workings of nature ». In this conversation, you’ve denied several times that Einstein ever endorsed this view. So I will leave you with two quotes from Einstein that show you are wrong. Please, when reading these quotes, pay attention to the bold passages for they demonstrate that Einstein’s views on the matter are undoubtedly ground on scientific evidences.
« Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble »
Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 93
« My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God »
Albert Einstein, The quotable Einstein. Ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 195-6 .
Omg shut up about Einstein or split the dang thread!