Eric Anderson

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities. This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to. I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again: —– For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to Read More ›

Note: This is a guest post by Virgil Cain. I have left it as is, with just a couple of typographical corrections. See my brief comments and caveats at the end. —– By Virgil Cain In 1997, “Not By Chance” by Lee Spetner was published. In it he argued for a “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” which had a mechanism of “built-in responses to environmental cues” at its heart. Some mutations happened just when they were needed. And some happened at just the right place to be effective. And even others, called transposons aka jumping genes, carried within its DNA coding sequence the coding for two of the enzymes required for it to be able to move around. A transposon has in Read More ›

One of the primary things keeping traditional evolutionary theory afloat is not the mountain of evidence supposedly existing in its favor, but the way in which the evidence is interpreted in the context of the pre-existing Darwinian paradigm. The key is the way evolutionary theorists tend to proceed from an observation to a series of conclusions. When you are steeped in evolutionary thought, when no alternative explanations are permitted as a matter of fiat, when the only possible interpretation open to you is a purely naturalistic and materialistic explanation, the conclusions seem to follow naturally. To paraphrase Philip Johnson’s wry (and somewhat sarcastic) observation: Evolution is really easy to prove. Since “evolution” means both tiny changes and the whole grand Read More ›

A couple of weeks ago a friend forwarded me a link to this recent article about “ongoing research to record the interaction of environment and evolution” by University of California, Riverside biologist David Reznick. Reznick’s team has been studying adaptive changes in guppies. Reznick’s work focuses on tracking what happens in real-world situations in the wild, rather than the somewhat artificial environments in the lab. As a result, Reznick has gathered some of the more trustworthy and definitive data about changes over time in a real-world environment, largely free from the intervention and interference of the coated lab worker. The article states: The new work is part of research that Reznick has been doing since 1978. It involved transplanting guppies Read More ›

The Japanese National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS) are reporting about new research that throws a small wrinkle into the search for life on planets outside our solar system. Such bodies, known as “exoplanets,” have emerged as one of the more exciting areas of astronomical study — an entire new field of research having essentially arisen in little more than two decades and now occupying many full-time researchers, several earth-bound telescopes, and even dedicated space missions. Early results have been impressive, with the improvements in sensor technology matched by the exponential increase in discovered bodies. After the first lone exoplanet was discovered around a main sequence star in 1995, a small trickle of additional exoplanets were discovered. Then the trickle Read More ›

Over on the other thread we’ve had a brief discussion of the recent initiative to find extraterrestrial intelligence. In response to a couple of the comments I thought it might be instructive to look at the logic behind the privileged planet hypothesis, as it relates to the search for life beyond Earth. To that end, I pose the following: What is the implication of the Earth being a Privileged Planet, assuming we subscribe to that view? Does it mean: (a) that Earth (with all of its various characteristics) is unlikely to have come about by purely natural means; and/or (b) that Earth is unique (or nearly unique) in the galaxy or the cosmos? —– The reason I pose the question Read More ›

Today, Yuri Milner and Stephen Hawking announced a $100M initiative to seek extraterrestrial life, injecting renewed energy (and funds) into the hunt for life (specifically, intelligent life) beyond our fair planet. Although this has been a decades-long area of research and interest, with the SETI institute playing perhaps the most important role in recent years, this new initiative promises to engage many more researchers and to create “the most ambitious and robust SETI program yet performed.” Observations should begin as early as 2016. The introductory video is available here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/health-science/breakthrough-initiatives-introduces-new-search-for-extraterrestrial-life/2015/07/20/d0d7a1b2-2eed-11e5-818f-a242f28e7022_video.html Additional information is available in several locations, including here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stephen-hawking-and-yuri-milner-announce-100m-initiative-to-seek-extraterrestrial-intelligence/ http://www.ucolick.org/news/initiative-apf.html

Yesterday I watched a re-run of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. There. I said it. I love Star Trek. Notwithstanding the many absurd evolution-based plotlines. In this specific episode, Data referred to a particular characteristic of a newly-developing lifeform as an “emergent property.” I’ve looked into the “emergence” ideas in the past, and the related self-organization hypotheses, and have never been too impressed. But it has been a while, so I thought I’d quickly navigate over to the Wikipedia page on the subject to see what it says. Now I’m a big fan of the general concept behind Wikipedia and it is a very useful tool, if used properly. Yet everyone knows that Wikipedia is a questionable source Read More ›

Just ran across this interesting article. I don’t put too much stock into computer simulations of things that are still poorly understood. Indeed, there are plenty of open questions about whether even the basic mechanics of planet formation are understood. But this caught my eye: For planets to be habitable, they must orbit stars within the ‘habitable zone’ where it is not too hot or too cold Yes, we know that, but this next part is less often discussed: In addition, recent studies on habitability of planets suggest that the water-land ratio must be similar to the Earth. That is, the water mass fraction should not be far from that of the Earth’s (~0.01wt%): planets with too much water (> Read More ›

Over at the ID The Future podcast, Casey Luskin has been doing a series on “the top 10 problems with biological and chemical evolution.” Some of the problems he discusses will no doubt be of more interest to certain listeners than to others. However, the segment on junk DNA is particularly worth hearing (about 13 minutes). For those who have been following the debate closely there may not be much new in the segment, but it provides a relatively up-to-date review of some of the recent research, with multiple citations that are useful when talking with a friend or colleague who may still be stuck in the naive and outdated idea that the genome is awash in junk.  Better yet, Read More ›

Recently on niwrad’s thread we have had a lively discussion about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and its potential application to the question of a materialistic abiogenesis scenario. kairosfocus has followed up with another useful post. In the present thread I provide a high level view of some of the key issues and misconceptions surrounding the 2nd Law arguments. Please note, I do so not as any kind of official spokesperson for intelligent design, but based on my experience debating this issue and my individual thoughts on the matter. My intelligent-design-inclined colleagues may disagree with my assessment, but hopefully I have provided some food for thought and, perhaps, an avenue for more productive discourse in the future. Discussions on this Read More ›

Yesterday a friend sent me a link to a news article with the exciting headline: “No water needed: Methane-based life possible on Saturn’s moon Titan, study says.” Quite remarkable! Amazing enough to immediately attract my friend’s attention and to get him to shoot an email to me with the link, as he knows I am interested in the field. Yet, if the headline weren’t exciting enough, the first sentence of the news article really amps up the message: Researchers from the Cornell University have developed a methane-based, oxygen-free life form that theoretically may exist in the cold and harsh environment of the planet Saturn’s giant moon Titan, defying the idea that water is necessary for life. This is truly an Read More ›

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and his take, which I am now elevating to a new thread on this important topic. For those who disagree with CHartsil’s take, strong objections on substantive grounds are of course welcome, whether relating to Lenski’s research or CHartsil’s interpretation of it, but not irrelevant personal attacks. Thank you. —– Guest Post by CHartsil: This is a pro-ID board so I doubt I need to explain Read More ›

Recently I have been thinking a lot about one of the most interesting topics: the origin of life. Specifically, the state of research on abiogenesis, the idea that life arose through purely natural processes without any intelligent guidance or intervention. I have also been thinking about the various viewpoints I have encountered over the years regarding abiogenesis. The various viewpoints about abiogenesis can be categorized along something of a spectrum. Although the spectrum is not necessarily symmetrical and there are probably numerous different views, I found it helpful to break them down into seven different categories in a 3-1-3 distribution, with stronger support for abiogenesis at one end of the spectrum and stronger skepticism toward abiogenesis at the other end Read More ›

We are regularly told by proponents of evolutionary theory, from Darwin right up to the present day, that purely natural processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, have the ability to build, construct, fashion, purpose and create remarkable machines. Machines that rival, and in many cases surpass, our most advanced technologies. We are assured in no uncertain terms that such natural processes have this great creative power. Yet when examples are sought, we are invariably given examples that either did not come about through purely natural processes (see Berra’s Blunder), or examples that are trivial in scope. But nothing that even comes close to verifying the grand claims of the evolutionary creation story. There is a huge elephant in Read More ›