Alexander Tsiaras, Chief of Scientific Visualization in the department of Medicine at Yale University, employs new kinds of visualization technologies to view the human body.
What he has discovered, he says, “just made you marvel.”
Using micro-magnetic resonance imaging, Tsiaras tracked the development of the baby from conception to birth.
Tsiaras claims that the developing human body is “so perfectly organized a structure that it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.”
“When you actually start working on this data, its pretty spectacular,” he said at a conference affiliated with TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design).
In the video viewers see the moment when the egg is inseminated. The baby’s first cellular division takes place within 24 hours and divides anew every 12 to 15 hours.
At four weeks, the baby’s cells are now developing at one million cells per second.
After 25 days, one can see the heart chamber developing. Within 32 days, arms and legs. At 52 days, the baby’s retina, nose, and fingers have developed.
Tsiaras calls the entire process — beginning with two simple cells and resulting in what he says is the “magic of you and me” — an “unbelievable machinery.”
“The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go — the complexities of these — the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done are beyond human comprehension, even though I am a mathematician.”
“It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity,” says Tsiaras, adding that the complexity of building the human organism within a single system is “beyond any existing mathematics today.”
It’s important to know what unborn babies look like, especially when having discussions about abortion.
Stephen Meyer is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who directs the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. His most recent book “Signature in the Cell” claims to show that the DNA code is the product of intelligent mind, not naturalistic processes. Keith Fox is Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. He chairs the UK Christians in Science network but disagrees strongly with ID. They debate how life could have originated and whether design is allowed as an explanation in science.
Summary: (stuff in italics is my snarky paraphrase)
Meyer:
background and how he got interested in intelligent design
his research focus is on the origin of life – the first replicator
summarizes the history of origin of life studies
authored the book “Signature in the Cell”
the DNA enigma: where did the information in DNA come from?
naturalistic explanations of the DNA information have failed
but intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information
the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it
Meyer’s book was named by atheist philosopher of science Thomas Nagel as a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year in 2010
why is design so controversial? Many people think that Darwin explained why nature appears design
the Darwinian view is that nature can create the appearance of design using mutation and selection
however, Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain the origin of the first living cell, it assumes replication, and the origin of life is about where the first replicator comes from
Fox:
Meyer’s argument is not about the evolution of life after the first cell
Meyer’s case for design is about the origin of life
naturalists do not know a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
there are a number of naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of life, like the RNA-first hypothesis
maybe in a few years one of them will turn out to be correct
what intelligent design is arguing from a gap in our current naturalistic knowledge to infer that God intervened in nature
Meyer:
that’s not what intelligent design is at all
the approach ID theorists use is the inference to best explanation
you evaluate all explanations, non-intelligent causes and intelligent causes
you prefer the best possible explanation
we know that minds are capable of producing information just like the information we find in DNA
Fox:
living cells replicate, so they have the ability to introduce mutations as they replicate and then some of those mutations can be selected
so maybe the process of replicating that living cells do created the first living cell
maybe the first living cell created itself, X brought X into being, self-creation, what’s irrational about that?
Meyer:
the issue is the origin of life – where did the first living cell come from?
you cannot appeal to the operations that a living cell can perform to explain the origin of the first living cell
there was no first living cell operating before the first living cell
there was no replication, mutation or selection before the first living cell
in fact, in my book I show that there is no known naturalistic mechanism that is able to produce the information needed for the first living cell
nothing can create itself, that is self-contradictory
Fox:
Well, you are just saying that because something is complex that God did it
Meyer:
Sadly, no. What I actually said needed to be explained was the information, not complexity
And we know from software engineering that the process of adding information to code is performed by programmers
in the absence of any adequate naturalistic explanation for information, we are justified in taking the explanation that we are familiar with – namely, intelligent agency – based on our uniform, universal experience of what causes information
Fox:
well, maybe we can appeal to the mutation and selection in existing living cells to explain the origin of the first living cell
maybe there were living cells before the first living cell, and then these other living cells created the first living cell
Meyer:
we can’t keep invoking mutation and selection when those processes are not operating prior to the origin of the first living cell
Fox:
well maybe some bare-bones self-replication molecule was a precursor to the first living cell
Meyer:
even to generate very limited replicator would require a large amount of information
the argument I am making is – where does the evolution come from?
Fox:
well, maybe we will think of an explanation for information that is naturalistic in 20 years
we’ve thought of explanations to things that were NOT information before
so maybe we will be able to think of something to explain information based on our ability to explain NOT information before
Moderator: Change topics: the Dover decision
Meyer:
the Discovery Institute opposed the policy that causes the trial
the wording of the statute was poor
the judge was completely wrong in his decision
young earth creationists used the phrase “intelligent design” to cover their agenda
intelligent design is an inference using the normal methods of science
Fox:
intelligent design is a science stopper because it stops looking for a naturalistic explanation
everything in nature must have a naturalistic explanation
everything has to be explained using matter and time and chance
it just has to be that way!!!!
Meyer:
well, what luck would you have explaining an effect like Mt. Rushmore?
can you explain that using matter,time and chance?
Mt. Rushmore was the product of intelligence, not wind and erosion
similarly, there is information in the cell, and we know that intelligence causes information
Fox:
So you are saying that we don’t understand and therefore an intelligence is necessary?
Meyer:
no I am saying we DO understand and we are making an inference based on that understanding
you are the one who is insisting on a material explanation because you pre-suppose materialism
we know that minds have causal powers, and we can infer mind as an explanation from information
Fox:
well nature is a seamless chain of material causes and effects
Meyer:
agents can act without violating the laws of nature
even humans can act as intelligent agents to create information in books, and they don’t violate the laws of nature
intelligent causes are real, and they explain effects in nature
Fox:
you’re trying to impose on science something to do with meaning and purpose
Meyer:
no that’s not what we’re doing, we’re inferring from from the fact that we ourselves are known causes of information to the fact that an intelligence cause is the best explanation for information in the cell
Fox:
but I am a materialist, I need a materialist explanation
Meyer:
mind IS an answer to the how question
we infer to mind in many other scientific disciplines, like cryptography, archaeology, etc.
a materialist might accuse an archaeologist of engaging in a “scribe-of-the-gaps” argument, but the best explanation of an artifact with information is a scribe
we are inferring that mind is the cause from the nature of the effect: information
Moderator: is it appropriate to call DNA “information”
Fox:
well DNA is just a molecular polymer, any reference to information is just by analogy
Meyer:
DNA is a molecular polymer, but it also exhibits the property of specified complexity
the arrangement of bases, which function as machine instructions in a software program, for performings task in the cell
we have observed that the property of specified complexity always comes from an intelligence
Fox:
well, maybe there are other sequences that would work, so maybe it’s really not uncommon to develop functioning sequences by chance alone, without an intelligence
Meyer:
you can measure how precise the functional specificity is in DNA and proteins
Moderator: is Shannon information the same as functional information
Meyer:
Shannon information refers to the sequences of digits or symbols that do not necessarily have any function, i.e. – a four character string QSZX has as much Shannon information as WORD. However, only the latter is functional against the pattern of the English language. There are arrangements of DNA bases and amino acids that have the same number of symbols/characters as a functional sequence would have, but they have no biological function – they do not exhibit specified complexity
Fox:
Well, maybe there are lots and lots of sequences of DNA and proteins so that it is fairly easy to get a functional one by chance
Meyer:
DNA sequences that are functional are extremely rare, protein sequences are even more rare
this is not my opinion, this is what the research shows – functional protein sequences are rare
Fox:
well maybe there are other functional sequences that are occur before the first functional sequence that are precursors to the first functional sequence
maybe there are billions of years of replication, mutation and selection before the first replication, mutation and selection
Meyer:
you can’t get to the first selectable functional sequence by appealing to precursor selectable functional sequences – there are no selectable functional sequences before the FIRST one
you have to get the first selectable functional sequence by chance alone, because there is nothing to mutate or select before the first replicator
the chance hypothesis has been rejected because the minimal amount of information for the simplest replicator is too high to get by chance alone, given the resources, including time, that are available
Moderator: Keith are you confident that naturalism will be able to substantiate these naturalism-of-the-gap speculations that you offer in response to Meyer’s actual science that we have today?
Fox:
well, it is hard to know for sure because it was just a fluke event
but there’s nothing irrational or unscientific or miraculous about it – the fluke would have a material explanation
there is nothing that we can detect that would implicate God, my speculations about a fluke which I cannot observe or measure or test would all be compatible with an atheistic worldview that omits God as a causal entity
Meyer:
where are those material processes that could account for this fluke then?
the whole point of this argument is that the information in DNA transcends the material components in the sequence
it’s the arrangement of the material parts/letters/characters/symbols/instructions that needs to be explained
Fox:
Well, I just have a different philosophy of science that rules out intelligent causation a priori
Meyer:
Yes, that’s the difference between us – you pre-suppose that all explanations of natural phenomena must exclude intelligent causes
There is a bit more where Meyer talks about how parts of the cell are implementations of various design patterns (Gang of Four design patterns) that are used by software architects who design software.
The actual results of the cuts in tax rates in the 1920s were very similar to the results of later tax-rate cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and George. W. Bush administrations — namely, rising output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the rising incomes, though the tax rates had been lowered.
Another consequence was that people in higher-income brackets paid not only a larger total amount of taxes, but a higher percentage of all taxes, after what were called “tax cuts for the rich.” It was not simply that their incomes rose, but that this was not taxable income, since the lower tax rates made it profitable to get higher returns outside of tax shelters.
The facts are unmistakably plain, for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people making over $100,000 a year was 73%, the federal government collected a little over $700 million in income taxes, of which 30% was paid by those making over $100,000.
[…]By 1929, after a series of tax-rate reductions had cut the tax rate to 24% on those making over $100,000, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income taxes, of which 65% was collected from those making over $100,000.
There is nothing mysterious about this. Under the sharply rising tax rates during the Wilson administration, fewer and fewer people reported high taxable incomes, whether by putting their money into tax-exempt securities or by any of the other ways of rearranging their financial affairs to minimize their tax liability.
Under Wilson’s escalating income-tax rates to pay for the high costs of the First World War, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of more than $300,000 — a huge sum in the money of that era — declined from well over a thousand in 1916 to fewer than three hundred in 1921. The total amount of taxable income earned by people making over $300,000 declined by more than four-fifths in those years.
Secretary Mellon estimated in 1923 that the money invested in tax-exempt securities had tripled in a decade, and was now almost three times the size of the federal government’s annual budget and nearly half as large as the national debt. “The man of large income has tended more and more to invest his capital in such a way that the tax collector cannot touch it,” he pointed out.
Getting that money moved out of tax shelters was the whole point of Mellon’s tax-cutting proposals. He also said: “It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to the support of his government should remain unaltered.”
Empirical evidence on what happened to the economy in the wake of those tax cuts in four different administrations over a span of more than 80 years has also been largely ignored by those opposed to what they call “tax cuts for the rich.”
Confusion between reducing tax rates on individuals and reducing tax revenues received by the government has run through much of these discussions over these years.
Famed historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., for example, said that although Andrew Mellon, secretary of the treasury from 1921 to 1932, advocated balancing the budget and paying off the national debt, he “inconsistently” sought “reduction in tax rates.”
Nor was Schlesinger the only highly regarded historian to perpetuate economic confusion between tax rates and tax revenues. Today, widely used textbooks by various well-known historians have continued to misstate what was advocated in the 1920s and what the actual consequences were.
According to the textbook “These United States” by Irwin Unger, Mellon, “a rich Pittsburgh industrialist,” persuaded Congress to “reduce income tax rates at the upper-income levels while leaving those at the bottom untouched.”
Thus “Mellon won further victories for his drive to shift more of the tax burden from the high-income earners to the middle and wage-earning classes.”
But hard data show that, in fact, both the amount and the proportion of taxes paid by those whose net income was no higher than $25,000 went down between 1921 and 1929, while both the amount and the proportion of taxes paid by those whose net incomes were between $50,000 and $100,000 went up — and the amount and proportion of taxes paid by those whose net incomes were over $100,000 went up even more sharply.
President Kennedy, like Andrew Mellon decades earlier, pointed out that “efforts to avoid tax liabilities” make “certain types of less-productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings” and “this inhibits our growth and efficiency.” Therefore the “purpose of cutting taxes” is “to achieve a more prosperous, expanding economy.”
“Total output and economic growth” were italicized words in the text of Kennedy’s address to Congress in January 1963, urging cuts in tax rates. Much the same theme was repeated yet again in President Reagan’s February 1981 address to a joint session of Congress, pointing out that “this is not merely a shift of wealth between different sets of taxpayers.”
Instead, basing himself on a “solid body of economic experts,” he expected that “real production in goods and services will grow.”
Even when empirical evidence substantiates the arguments made for cuts in tax rates, such facts are not treated as evidence relevant to testing a disputed hypothesis, but as isolated curiosities. Thus, when tax revenues rose in the wake of the tax-rate cuts made during the George W. Bush administration, the New York Times reported:
“An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”
Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder. However surprising these facts may have been to the New York Times, they are exactly what proponents of reducing high tax rates have been expecting, not only from these particular tax rate cuts, but from similar reductions in high tax rates at various times going back more than three-quarters of a century.
It’s Thomas Sowell – the official economist of the Tea Party.
WINTERY KNIGHT 