Recently I came across some amazing animations of various kinds of engines and other machines at the following Web sites, which I thought I might share with readers: Here, here, here, here and here. Two questions to ponder: (1) How many of these machines have analogues in the world of living things? (2) What predictions does Intelligent Design theory make regarding which of these machines will be found in organisms? Enjoy!
In a recent post, Professor Moran issued me with a challenge: Vincent, let’s test your honesty. Considering the two sides of this debate, do you honestly think that evolutionary biologists are more likely — or at least as likely — to be swayed by ideological bias and emotion as the creationists who argue against evolution? In today’s post, I’d like to explain why I believe that evolutionary biologists who regard evolution as an unguided process are more ideologically biased than people who believe that God made us – whether through a process of (a) direct creation or (b) guided evolution. The distinction between the latter two positions is totally irrelevant, from Professor Moran’s perspective: he has written that he regards Read More ›
I would like to thank Professor Moran for kindly addressing the issues raised in my previous post, “Branko Kozulic responds to Professor Moran”. The answers did help me clarify some points that I was struggling with, in my thinking. In this reply, I am speaking in my own name only. (Note by vjtorley: I have made a few minor corrections to Dr. Kozulic’s English, but the views expressed below are his, not mine. However, since he does not have posting privileges on Uncommon Descent, I have agreed to put up this post at his request, as I’m a firm believer in free speech.) At the outset, I would like to express my conviction that in matters relating to science, Professor Read More ›
In a recent post, Professor Larry Moran takes exception to a Youtube video by Intelligent Design advocate Dr. Jonathan Wells, who uses the illustration of a leaking cell to rebut scientific claims that life on Earth could have arisen naturally from non-living matter, via an unguided process. The Youtube video did not mention God. Instead, Dr. Wells began with a discussion of Stanley Miller’s 1953 experiment, which simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and which managed to produce more than 20 amino acids, as well as some sugars. Here’s the complete transcript of Dr. Wells’ video: Even if Miller’s experiment were valid, you’re still light years away from making life. It comes Read More ›
In a recent post in which I questioned the claim that over 100 mutations get fixed in the human population in every generation, I remarked, “I’m happy to be proved wrong.” Guess what? I meant it. After weighing the evidence presented on both sides, I’ve decided that there are no good mathematical arguments showing that 130 mutations couldn’t have been fixed in each generation of the human lineage, over the past five million years. Although the equations of population genetics are based on assumptions, these assumptions have been tested – and validated – for bacteria. And while the mutation rate per individual per generation is five orders of magnitude greater for human beings than for bacteria, the fact that the Read More ›
This is a continuation of an earlier post, A short post on fixation, to which Professor Moran replied here. He has asked Dr. Kozulic to contact him directly; Dr. Kozulic is now answering that request as co-author of the present post. We asked Professor Moran to answer three questions relating to the fixation of neutral mutations. But before dealing with his answers, let’s confirm that both sides agree that the key point at issue here is the fixation of neutral mutations in the human lineage, subsequent to its divergence from the lineage leading to chimpanzees. In Professor Moran’s words: In an attempt to show them that evolution CAN account for the differences between humans and chimps/bonobos, I wrote up a Read More ›
In a recent post, Professor Larry Moran accused me of shifting the goalposts, in order to avoid a discussion about whether evolution could account for the fixation of 22.4 million mutations in the human lineage, since we broke away from the chimps, five million years ago. Not being one to run away from a controversy, I’ve decided to make this question the topic of today’s post. I’d like to begin by defining the neutral theory of evolution: “This neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are not caused by selection acting on advantageous mutants, but by random fixation of selectively neutral or very nearly neutral mutants through the cumulative effect of sampling drift Read More ›
When it comes to explaining the origin of complexity, evolutionists are a house divided. Here’s what Professor Richard Dawkins has to say on the subject: I have written many times that natural selection is NOT the only mechanism of evolution. I have said it is the only known mechanism of ADAPTIVE evolution. And I’ll say that again. Natural selection is the only known mechanism of adaptive evolution, meaning the evolution of complex adaptations carrying the illusion of design. If you have another candidate not involving selection, let’s hear it. (Source, November 26, 2011.) Compare that with what Professor PZ Myers wrote recently, in two posts which are provocatively titled, The fundamental failure of the evolutionary psychology premise and Complexity is Read More ›
The neutral theory of evolution appears to have won out over its rival, neo-Darwinian selection theory (see here and here). However, the neutral theory makes a very specific prediction about the rate at which mutations are fixed in a population, which I think warrants more testing and scrutiny. The evidence for this prediction which I’ve seen to date is frankly underwhelming. What is the neutral theory of evolution? Let’s begin with a few definitions. What is the neutral theory of evolution? Here’s a short definition given by Professor Terry Speed, formerly of Berkeley University: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Kimura) states, in essence, that most of the variation seen at the molecular level is selectively neutral — that is, Read More ›
In the course of two short posts littered with no less than ten erroneous, misleading or doubtful claims, Professor PZ Myers argues his case that science and religion are incompatible: (i) science can only flourish in an atmosphere where dangerous or eccentric ideas can be freely discussed; (ii) religion, by its very nature, tends to suppress those ideas that run counter to orthodox doctrines; hence (iii) religion is fundamentally inimical to the progress of science. What Professor Myers’ thesis overlooks, however, is that: (a) it was sixteenth- and seventeenth-century thinkers, writing from religious, theological, and philosophical perspectives, who did more than anyone to advance the cause of religious toleration and free speech, which enabled science to flourish, as Perez Zagorin’s Read More ›
Royal ferns haven’t undergone any significant changes since the Jurassic, according to a report by Pete Spotts in the Christian Science Monitor, titled, Fossil fern: not much to show for at least 180 million years of evolution (21 March 2014): A newly described bit of fossil fern, reported in the current issue of the journal Science, marks the first time researchers can make direct comparisons at the level of individual plant cells and the chromosomes they contain. It verifies that the genome of royal ferns has remained unchanged for at least the past 180 million years.… Royal ferns first emerged in the Southern Hemisphere more than 250 million years ago, researchers say. Fossil specimens dating to 220 million years ago Read More ›
People who hold the view that “there is a non-scientific source of knowledge about the natural world, such as divine revelation or the historical teachings of a church, that trumps all other claims to knowledge,” are a menace to science. That’s the claim made by mathematician Jason Rosenhouse, in his latest post over at his Evolution Blog. Science, avers Rosenhouse, is not just a collection of facts; it’s “an attitude, one that says that all theories must be tested against facts and that evidence must be followed wherever it leads.” In an earlier 2009 post, Rosenhouse criticizes the claim that “science is not the only way of knowing,” and forthrightly declares: “The ways of knowing that are unique to religion, Read More ›
Professor Larry Moran has kindly responded to my recent post questioning whether he, or anyone else, understands macroevolution. In the course of his response, titled, What do Intelligent Design Creationists really think about macroevolution?, Professor Moran posed a rhetorical question: I recently wrote up a little description of the differences between the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes showing that those differences are perfectly consistent with everything we know about mutation rates and the fixation of alleles in populations [Why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar?]. In other words, I answered Vincent Torley’s question [about whether there was enough time for macroevolution to have occurred – VJT]. That post was met with deafening silence from the IDiots. I wonder why? Read More ›
Professor Larry Moran thinks macroevolution isn’t terribly hard to understand, if you take the time to do some reading on the subject. He also thinks that Professor James Tour, the world-famous organic chemist who has declared that he doesn’t understand macroevolution, is lazy and opinionated. Professor Moran singled out Professor Tour for attack in a recent post titled, A chemist who doesn’t understand evolution. (Before I continue, I’d like to thank Professor Moran for linking to my article, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution, in his post.) Here’s a relevant excerpt from Moran’s post: Normally you’d have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim that all other experts are Read More ›
I was very gratified to read Professor Larry Moran’s recent post, On teaching creationism in American public universities (17 March 2014). Professor Moran not only believes that Intelligent Design qualifies as science, but he also believes that it should be legal to teach science courses in Intelligent Design at university. To be sure, Moran thinks that ID is very bad science; nevertheless, he insists that “university students are mature enough to handle diverse points of view.” Good for him, I say. While Professor Moran and I have had our disagreements about evolution in the past, I salute him as a fair-minded man. Professor Moran’s post concludes with a zinger aimed at Professor Jerry Coyne, who maintains that “although it’s illegal Read More ›