It has been brought to my attention that a previous entry of mine cited / linked to the wrong paper regarding the hybridization of twenty-one different chromosome-specific human alpha satellite DNA probes. This has now been corrected.
This morning I was observing some of the recent comment thread activity on Uncommon Descent, and my attention was drawn to this comment by Nick Matzke on the subject of the “onion test” argument for junk DNA: I have [The Myth of Junk DNA], and all [Jonathan] Wells does is gloss past T. Ryan Gregory’s onion argument; Wells gives the more important point, the huge variability in genome size as a widespread pattern, much attention at all. Considering Wells’s book is the definitive ID treatment of the junk DNA issue, and us ID critics have been bashing ID for its complete failure on the genome-size variability issue for years, this was a huge omission on Wells’s part. Here, I offer Read More ›
The UK Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) director, Dr. Alastair Noble, has published a new report on the C4ID website. He writes, I participated in a series of short interviews on Sunday 25th September on a number of BBC Local Radio stations with James Williams, a lecturer in Science Education at the University of Sussex. The theme of the interviews was the recent statement from some 30 scientists, including Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, demanding that, among other things, intelligent design (ID) be banned from discussion in schools as a scientific proposition[1]. Williams has subsequently blogged about the encounter at WordPress.com.[2] Both in the interviews and in his blog, Williams is significantly confused about ID. The current misrepresentation of Read More ›
I recently read the Wikipedia web-page on the “Evidence of Common Descent.” The page comprises a succinct, yet comprehensive, description of the most frequently cited arguments for the proposition of universal descent with modification. Since this is a subject that interests me, I decided to take it upon myself to write a review of the arguments, and in so doing to evaluate their merits. Wikipedia lists eight categories of evidence for common descent, which I hope to address over the course of this and future articles. Click here to continue reading>>>
I recently published an article on the marvelous design and engineering which undergirds the bacterial chemotaxis system. Since then, a notorious atheist who posts regular videos on YouTube under the alias “C0nc0rdance“, as well as “agentorange20” (under the latter, he identifies himself as Zachary Moore), has posted a rebuttal. This is a brief response to that rebuttal. The extent to which two-component regulatory systems, or the chemotaxis system in particular, are irreducibly complex lay beyond the remit of my previous article, the purpose of which was to highlight the clear engineering analogues. With many of these signalling systems, there is an element of redundancy, with feedback and overlapping systems so as to make things stable and robust to error. As a result, there are often multiple Read More ›
From here: ‘THERE’S PROBABLY NO DAWKINS’ SLOGAN FOR OXFORD BUSES ‘Reasonable Faith Tour’ with William Lane Craig Responds to Dawkins Boycott A message with a familiar ring to it will be rolling out on the side of buses in Oxford from 10th of October. ‘There’s Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre’ The advertising campaign follows Richard Dawkins’ refusal to publicly debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when he visits the UK in October. He has an open invitation to debate Craig at Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre on 25th October. The Oxford bus campaign echoes the 2009 London atheist bus advertisements: ‘There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Read More ›
Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth hopes to convey and document some of the evidence which compels him to embrace a Darwinian perspective on origins. Dawkins is also author of The God Delusion and probably today’s best known Darwinian apologist. Dawkins, in his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth, lives up to his legendary reputation of creative tale-telling. Just how strong are Richard Dawkins’ arguments? Does he present anything new? Do his claims stand up when subjected to careful scrutiny? Richard Dawkins clearly thinks so. In chapter 1 of his book, entitled Only a theory? Dawkins remarks: Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. Read More ›
Last week in Glasgow, Scotland, Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) director Alastair Noble, David Swift, and I attended a lecture presented by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. The event was organized by Glasgow Skeptics, who previously hosted a talk by PZ Myers back in June. Click here to continue reading>>>
From here: EVENT DESCRIPTION In October 2011, William Lane Craig, arguably the world’s leading Christian academic apologist, will once again visit the UK for a series of lectures and debates. Following his highly successful Reasonable Faith Tour in 2007, Bill will again present the case for the truth of the Christian faith, responding both to Stephen Hawking’s recent book The Grand Design as well as to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, which will then have just seen its 5 year publication anniversary. Richard Dawkins has thus far declined a debate, but the door is open to him defending his book The God Delusion on 25th October 2011 at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. PROVISIONAL SCHEDULE The details of the tour are Read More ›
ID theorists have long urged that the case for design is both a positive and scientific argument, based on standard principles of abductive scientific reasoning. Key to the detectability of design are particular characteristics that intelligent agents often leave behind as hallmarks of their activity. We know that intelligent causes are the only category of explanation with the ability to visualize, and ultimately actualize, a complex and functionally specified end goal. Hence, presented with a complex and functionally integrated system in nature, we can infer that some measure of conscious or rational deliberation was employed in its development. Click here to continue reading>>>
Those of you who have been following this blog, as well as Evolution News & Views, for some time, will be aware that I have previously discussed, across multiple articles, the phenomenon of endogenous retroviral inserts into the genomes of primates. Those familiar with the debate over origins will also be familiar with the various arguments for common descent which are based upon these fascinating genetic elements. A friend recently asked me if I would compile my thoughts on the topic into a single article, and hence that is what I intend to do here. Since my previous articles on the topic (and since my progression from undergraduate to postgraduate status), my knowledge of the subject has increased and I Read More ›
The Guardian features an interesting opinion column by the renowned British pharmacologist David Colquhoun. The article bears the intriguing headline, “Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science.” The author laments that “Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.” Click here to continue reading>>>
Ann Gauger has already drawn our attention to the new paper, published just last week, in the journal BIO-Complexity. Authored by Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson, the paper is concerned with the question of the origin of the genetic code, and seeks to evaluate the efficacy of the so-called Direct RNA Templating (DRT) hypothesis as an explanation for its origin. Click here to continue reading>>>
I recently published an article on Uncommon Descent on the value of probabilistic arguments in the evolution debate. Mathematician and ScienceBlogs contributor Jason Rosenhouse has since responded with a rebuttal on his blog. Here, I offer a brief response. Rosenhouse writes, Jonathan M. is completely confused about what the issue is. Pigliucci certainly never claimed that biologists are not interested in evaluating probabilistic feasibility (whatever that even means). He said simply that evolutionary biologists do not assign probabilities to specific events in the way that ID folks would like. For example, Jonathan M. points to a calculation in which biologist Sean Carroll estimated the probability of obtaining the same mutation four times independently in different orders of birds. In such Read More ›