Here is an exchange between Hannah Maxson (a rising senior with a triple major in the sciences at Cornell) and professor Allen MacNeill along with the various members of Uncommon Descent (UDers), Pandas Thumb (Pandas), ISCID, BSG, IDEA, NCSE, and other Cornell students and alumni.
Read More ›
And while we’re at it, let’s not forget that natural selection also built the chariot, toaster oven, and space shuttle. Go here for another case of nanodesign, unanticipated but readily rationalized by evolutionary theory: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/12/0321217&from=rss.
Mark, evidently hoping others might succeed where he failed, continues to be a shill for anti-Dembski “authors”. Give it up, Mark. There’s no such thing as a Free Lunch.
Ever get frustrated arguing with Darwinists about the illogic of their theory? It’s like arguing with Ma & Pa Kettle about the finer points of arithmetic. I’m sure you’ll agree that the following video captures the dynamic of this debate (the only difference is that Ma & Pa Kettle are a lot more personable than most Darwinists): Ma & Pa Kettle doing math video.
[I took this off because it was consuming too much bandwidth. Here it is back again. –WmAD] Hooded winter jacket with large inside pocket to conceal identity and carry gun: $65.00 9mm Handgun purchased from Ray-Jay up the block: $150.00 Failure to master proper weapon retention during your planned armed robbery:
(adapted from a discussion at Evolution and Design )
All right guys, a potential area of ID research. Who knows how long it may take to uncover, but here is where Explanatory Filter (EF) methods may help and where IDers can make a killer breakthrough for their theory if they succeed. There will be money, fame, and glory if this enigma is solved by IDers.
DaveScot summed it up in a previous UD comment perhaps better than I have ever heard it expressed:
…the ballyhooed 150 years of acceptance of Darwinian evolution is irrelevant — it was based on vastly incomplete knowledge of the nanometer-scale machinery and information that drives all of life. Even today we have barely scratched the surface of this nanotechnology marvel that is the DNA-based living cell. All previous bets are off. The modern synthesis can best be described as obsolete — a patchwork quilt of ad hoc hypotheses propping up a failed theory worse than the epicycles used to keep alive the theory that the earth was the center of the universe.
All previous bets are indeed off.
Read More ›
Does Luria-Delbruck really mean that mutations are random? Or might it indicate something else?
Read More ›
Darwinists want to argue that natural selection is teleological. That cellular systems are able to ‘find’ solutions to life’s challenges because of the cell’s ability to reproduce. Using an analogy to mathematical problem solving, this is, in reality, no more than implementing an iterative process. And, as such, the question to be asked is: do we, even now, have a computer powerful enough, and a scientific sophistication capable enough, to find the kinds of solutions nature has found? Article after article are now appearing that tell us the answer is ‘no’.
But, prescinding from this question, let’s look at the latest such article, one dealing with ‘microtubules’. Microtubules form the very structure of cells; they give cells their 3-dimensional character. Cells couldn’t reproduce without microtubules. And what is it we see now? Microtubules represent an engineering skill that is completely beyond anything humans have been able to do so far. But, if microtubules are essential to cell reproduction, then how could this possibly be the result of an ‘iterative’ process? Who engineered this miracle of design? This is more than just a challenge for abiogenesis advocates. If ‘iterative’ processes are completely unable to explain what we see here, what does this say about our confidence in invoking them when it comes to other engineering marvels we find in Nature?
“One thing we will discover is that buried deep within the DNA of humans, Vulcans (even Klingons) and other intelligent bi-pedal races is a mathematical code, something buried so deep and of such complexity that it could not possibly have occurred by chance.” http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf
Many people who argue against Intelligent Design’s position on transitional forms often don’t have any clue what it is that is actually being said. I’d like to take a moment to clear it up. If anyone disagrees with my commentary (especially ID’ers — I’d hate to misrepresent other’s opinions), please post below. My main point in writing is not so much a defence of the concept (though I do attempt that) but rather to show why it makes sense even in the absence of special creation, and why its use is not limitted to people who agree with special creation, but anyone who believes in a telic form of evolution.
With the aid of smoke and mirrors and beautiful women, David Copperfield can make the impossible seemingly happen before the very eyes of live audiences. He is an illusionist by profession, and is so adept at what he does, he has become one of the highest paid celebrities in the world (57 million a year).
It is one thing for cleverly crafted theatrical illusions to be consumed for entertainment. It is another when theatrical illusions in computer simulations are used as evidence in a landmark federal case like Kitzmiller versus Dover.
This will be the first installment of a 3 part series where I will explore the work on evolutionary algorithms by Chris Adami, Dave Thomas, Wesley Elsberry, and Jeff Shallit. (In no way am I claiming the theatrics of their evolutionary algorithms were deliberate or meant to mislead or deceive. I simply use the phrase to hammer the point that these simulations are little better than theatrical illusions.)
Avida is the premier computer simulation in the anti-IDist arsenal. It supposedly illustrates Darwinian evolution, creates an instance of artificial life, provides a refutation of Behe’s irreducible complexity, and disproves Dembski’s assertions of information conservation and specified complexity. It has been featured in prestigious scientific journals, was offered as evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, brought a measure of fame to its promoters, and possibly paid a few mortgages.
Here’s an email I received today that gave me a chuckle and that I thought might amuse the readers of this blog: From: RJDownard@snip Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:11:02 EDT Subject: Ann Coulter’s New Book To: william.dembski@snip Dear Bill I see that you, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski are commended by Ann Coulter in her new book apropos the “generous tutoring” she obtained at your hands. I am presently in the process of analyzing her anti-“Darwiniac” arguments point-by-point at Talk Reason (with courtesy postings at Panda’s Thumb as well) , and so naturally am curious about the extent and content of those tutorials, and to what degree those tutorials could have contributed to her written conclusions. I also notice Read More ›
Consider the following quote: Like Behe, William Dembski, and the wedge-pedigreed scientists of the Discovery Institute, Coulter never really takes on evolutionary biology, presumably because she is unwilling or unable to read recent, peer-reviewed research by actual biologists. Here is who wrote it: Jennie Lightweis-Goff is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Rochester. Her forthcoming single-authored publications include “Sins of Commitment” in Senses of Cinema (July 2006). Phillip Lightweis-Goff is a self-employed artist, an activist for social change, and an avid student of history and anthropology. They live together in Rochester, New York. Here is the full article: http://www.countercurrents.org/goff100706.htm
Given Francis Collins’s view of evolution, how does science support the idea of “genetic code as sacred speech”? Or is this simply a faith move? From the Washington Post, Sunday, July 9, 2006; BW05 Reason to Believe A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith. Reviewed by Scott Russell Sanders THE LANGUAGE OF GOD A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief By Francis S. Collins Free Press. 283 pp. $26 . . . The God in whom Collins believes is no aloof Prime Mover who set the show in motion and withdrew to watch. He’s a deity who intervenes (albeit rarely) in the course of things. Why God permits the suffering of innocents is a puzzle Collins does not Read More ›