Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coming Soon-‘Design Disquisitions’ A New ID Blog

arroba Email

Despite being an ID advocate for several years now (and having an authors account on this forum), I haven’t really taken the time to put pen to paper and write about it, apart from a few lengthy exchanges I had with a close friend and critic of ID. He has since stepped away from the online world, and so the exchange has ended. You can still view my responses to him here, here, herehere, and here. I also published one article where I highlighted various atheists and agnostics who are critical of neo-Darwinism and supportive of ID here.

The last thing I wrote on the subject was two years ago now, however this last year I’ve been wishing to start up a new ID blog. I made this decision for several reasons. One reason is that I simply want a place where I can write and consolidate my thoughts on the matter. I’ve also been meaning to get back into writing in general, and of course, I need a specific topic to focus on. Having said all this, I’m genuinely fascinated with this whole topic, particularly philosophy of science and biology. Yes, there are already plenty of good, active blogs and websites that cover this area so it isn’t as if another one is necessary, but I do think I can add something to the discussion.

There are other factors that make this new blog slightly different to ones already out there. I’m from the UK and not officially affiliated with other ID organisations like the Discovery Institute and so really, mine is an independent one. There have been some pro-design UK blogs in the past but they are now in stasis and as far as I’m aware there isn’t much other commentary coming from my neck of the woods. Of course, I’m fully aware of the excellent work that Centre for Intelligent Design have and are still doing (and I hear they’ll be launching a brand new website in the new year). I have contacts with many involved with C4ID and have taken part in some of their events. But I still feel that there needs to be a little more activity coming from us Brits so hopefully I can help to fill that gap.

To give a few more concrete details about this blog, it’s provisional title is ‘Design Disquisitions’, as I think it accurately captures my intentions behind this endeavour. I intend to use it to explore all aspects of the ID conversation, documenting different perspectives in the debate and turning a critical eye to both sides (even though I do side with the design view). I’ll also be defending ID by responding to critics and documenting the powerful, positive arguments in its favour. I have little interest in the political culture wars that often get dragged in to this issue and I want to focus on the science and philosophy. I love places like Uncommon Descent and Evolution News and Views, yet I think perhaps conservative ethical, political and and other extra-scientific issues get mixed in too much, which distorts the corpus. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with conservative views on those issues, and of course, ID may have many extra-scientific implications, but for me they are not relevant to ID as a scientific theory.

I’ve already been working hard on this blog throughout the year, so I have quite a bit of material stocked up. I’ve also worked hard at just gathering resources and it’ll be the most thorough storehouse of ID material on the web. As for when it will be online, I’m aiming for January in the new year. Until then I’ve got a lot of work to do!

Stay tuned!


RVB8, you may wish to ponder the OP and discussion thread here, as drawing out the significance of DNA as text, which was highlighted by Crick on March 19, 1953 as demonstrated in the OP: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/crick-on-dna-as-text/ KF kairosfocus
RVB8, we are still waiting for you to cogently address the issue of text being observed in the heart of cell based life [particularly, machine code], and in so doing to correct your blunder regarding base chaining in D/RNA in 43 above. This, on pain of being exposed as not only demonstrably ill-informed on wider worldviews issues but also of having falsely claimed a focal interest on matters of science connected to the design inference controversy (by implied sharp contrast with ID supporters here at UD). KF kairosfocus
RVB8, we are waiting -- right here. KF kairosfocus
UB, we wait. KF kairosfocus
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm expecting rv to bust through the door and admit to the established scientific facts at any moment now. :) Upright BiPed
GP@ 17, now that I have skimmed back above -- spot on. This is already one of the pivotal threads in UD's saga, where the issues are plainly put on the table. Notice, onlooker, where the balance on merits lies. KF kairosfocus
RVB8, it is fair and appropriate comment to say that we await your response and explanation of yourself, especially after months of sneering about UD as anti-science, ignorant, failing to deal with science and the like. KF kairosfocus
rv, you may want to start here HERE
AMINOACYL-tRNA SYNTHETASES (aaRS) Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases ensure that the proper amino acids are used to build proteins When a ribosome pairs a "CGC" tRNA with "GCG" codon, it expects to find an alanine carried by the tRNA. It has no way of checking; each tRNA is matched with its amino acid long before it reaches the ribosome. The match is made by a collection of remarkable enzymes, the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. These enzymes charge each tRNA with the proper amino acid, thus allowing each tRNA to make the proper translation from the genetic code of DNA into the amino acid code of proteins. -- RCSB PDB Protein Data Bank
You can now answer the question which (by direct osmosis at this point) you should have the answer for:
Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the association?
Upright BiPed
Good grief rv, all the intolerance and self-certainty you've posted on this blog is based on misunderstanding your high school biology? Now that you know that the symbolic code in DNA isn't established by A-T C-G, you can go ahead and answer the previous question:
My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?
Feel free to Google anything you want confirmed. Upright BiPed
Is the confusing and senseless post @43 supposed to be understood as the response to the excellent commentary @31? By the way, at the end of that post @43 one reads what apparently was supposed to be "gnashing of teeth" (show of anger, dismay, discontent), but grossly misspelled (teath in lieu of teeth). It almost seem like it was done purposely for mocking, because the spellchecker of the editor would have autocorrected the misspelling. The only value of the mumbo-jumbo written in post @43 is that it triggered the instructive posts @44 and @45 by gpuccio and KF respectively. It's sad to see someone wasting the opportunity to learn the interesting things explained @31. Simply pathetic. Oh, well. What else is new? Dionisio
RVB8, you are confusing cross-links between the two complementary strands of DNA with chaining down the length of the string; which is telling. Without the freedom to have AGCT follow in the chain in any order, DNA could not store the information to assemble proteins specified by the genetic code. Your onward refusal to address functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, reducing to a strawman "Look how complicated it all is," is further revealing as to determined mindset not to face sober evidence. And, the FIRST context is Darwin's warm pond of chemicals or the like pre-life environment, the root of the tree of life in OOL, where yes, there is no reproductive mechanism based on genetic code so there is no basis for chance variation and genetically linked natural selection. Then, at body plan origin level you have dodged the issue of need for many closely matched and correctly arranged, properly coupled parts to achieve function i.e. deeply isolated islands of function in vast config spaces; yet another strawman tactic dismissal. The rest of your objections collapse in the wake of that basic, disqualifying confusion and resort to strawman tactics backed up by sneers. Please, think again. KF kairosfocus
rvb8: I appreciate that you have tried, but listen to me: if you really don't understand the basics of biology, why do you keep discussing it? The AT - CG binding is obviously a biochemical connection, and is the foundation of all procedures to duplicate DNA and to copy information form DNA to mRNA. As all high school students,including you, should know. But that has nothing to do with the genetic code, as all good high school students should know. The genetic code is the symbolic correspondence of the 64 codons with the 20 aminoacids (and stop signals). It is a redundant code, which is not based an anyb biochemical affinity. IOWs, the linear sequence CCA in DNA is translated to Proline when a protein is synthesized in the ribosome. That mapping is completely symbolic, because CCA, as a sequence of three nucleotides, has no biochemical connection at all with Proline. To understand what DNA translation is, see for example this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(biology) It's called translation exactly because it transforms a symbolic information (the sequence of codons in the DNA protein coding gene) into a final outcome (the sequence of aminoacids in the protein). The code is symbolic, as everyone knows (except maybe you). That's why it is called a code. The key actors in the translation process are the aminoacyl RNA synthetases, 20 complex proteins which can couple the correct codon to the correct aminoacid. Please, review points 5-7 in my post #31. Is that clear enough for you? gpuccio
gpuccio, I know from high school that Adenine only bonds with Thymine, and Cytosine only bonds with Guanine. Where is the 'symbolism' exactly? These are chemicals These bases are further made up of hydrogen,oxygen, nitrogen,carbon and phosphorous; still not 'symbolism', much better; facts! When I read your 'unanswerable' facts all I see is one theme: “Look how complicated it all is. This simply can't arise from RM+NS." This is known as the, 'argument from increduility,' and is a staple of IDers and also, the only argument ID ever makes. Irreducible Complexity is derived from this arguent as is FSCM/UFO, or whatever letters Kairos grab bags. The Design Inferrance is also another, 'wow it's complex, must be designed,' cannard. I can't follow your science, could you please post these facts at a proper science site, I am not remotely qualified to address these.Suffice to say I think the scientists would say; 'What the hell is the word 'symbolism' doing here?' I do suspect groans and, 'nashing of teath' however. rvb8
D, 33 too indeed. Let us hear the response to one of our resident physicians on the science of ID. You come in as biologically very literate indeed. (I guess I can say, I sign up as applied physicist who has worked with info systems and takes the bridge to the informational view of stat mech seriously.) KF kairosfocus
KF @40: Please, let me add this: GP @ 33, also spot on - as usual! BTW, has rvb8 commented on gpuccio @31 yet? Can somebody please let rvb8 know some folks are anxious to read his take on gpuccio's comment @31? Rvb8 could reveal scientific discoveries no one is aware of! :) Has anybody seen rvb8 posting any comments after 3am* today? (*) Denver, CO time stamp. Dionisio
GP @ 31, spot on -- as usual! KF kairosfocus
Harry, I am a Hardy Boy, and just the thought of the old Tektronix 465 fed with those old x10 clip on attenuator probes warms the cockles of my heart. My fingers still remember the comfortable, just right firm clicks of the rotary switches, that nothing else since then has ever duplicated. I have developed micro based systems and have come to the point where I began to read some of the machine code. (Long gone now! Motorola is gone, too -- incredible! [And when I have seen some of the old names recently, that just means some firm in China has bought the rights; likely working with Walmart.]) So, yes, we are looking at this as people familiar with the class of tech with a far more sophisticated version in front of us. One, in the context of Von Neumann kinematic self replicating automata using molecular nanotech . . . we can describe this but nigh on seventy years later, we cannot build them yet. And Crick knew that from the first, as his $6 mn letter to his son of March 19, 1953 directly states: "Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)." This is past sixty years ago now, and in the context of winning a Nobel Prize. It is long past high time we faced the implications! KF kairosfocus
harry: "History will record that the science of our times — perverted by atheism as it was — became a joke, a very bad and stupid joke that temporarily ruined true, relentlessly objective, genuine science that follows the evidence wherever it leads." Very well said. A very sad example of cognitive bias at world level. gpuccio
kairofocus @36, I worked with technology most of my adult life, both hardware and software -- mostly software, but I have done troubleshooting of electronic hardware with an oscilloscope. This was back in the days when you could actually put your finger on the bad component. Today diodes, transistors and so on are most often microscopic sized. ;o) I have written software to simulate the instruction set of a CPU, software to communicate with robotic equipment on the factory floor, software to manage digital telephony switches, and much, much more. I am not looking for a job. ;o) I mention all of this just to make a point: You are absolutely right. It is laughably, ridiculously and utterly stupid to even momentarily entertain the notion that the self-replicating, digital-information-based nanotechnology we find in the cell is a mindless accident. History will record that the science of our times -- perverted by atheism as it was -- became a joke, a very bad and stupid joke that temporarily ruined true, relentlessly objective, genuine science that follows the evidence wherever it leads. harry
UB, the pivotal fact is there is TEXT in the heart of life, specifically algorithm effecting machine code. Oodles of it. Plus NC machinery for that code -- in D/RNA -- to work on. Code and text plus processing machinery do not come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, period. No reasonable search challenge analysis will allow anyone to escape that point. So, we all have to come to terms with LANGUAGE and messages in the form of molecular technology computing machinery in the heart of life. language and the related stuff are as strong signs of design as one could ask for, just ask the SETI people what they would do if they ran across something that was doing this stuff. Game over, we have to deal with life as a designed entity, if we are at all to be coherent. KF kairosfocus
rv, everything I said in my question is easily fact-checked in a matter of moments. Did Crick predict a set of adapter molecules? Of course he did. Did Zamecnik and Hoagland find those molecules and the set of complex aaRS proteins that charge them? Of course they did. Are these things part of the history record of science? Of course they are. Is it also an accepted truth throughout empirical science that no material object has any inherent semantic quality? Of course it is. As I said, nothing of this is even the slightest bit conttroversial. The one and only reason you don't address the question, choosing instead to run from it like the plague, is because the facts and history of empirical science support ID in a completely unambiguous fashion. Why does it take two objects to specify an amino acid during protein synthesis? Because no physical object specifies anything at all, so it requires a particular organization where one object serves as a representation (i.e. DNA) and another object establishes what is being represented (i.e. aaRS). This has been recorded knowledge for more than half a century. Attacking the people who point this out to you is not going to change the facts in any way whatsoever. It only demonstrates that you've given up on science, and are prepared to be an anti-intellectual in the service of your faith. Upright BiPed
gpuccio, Recently you also pointed to another "it is generally accepted" related to identical twins having separate minds. :) Dionisio
Dionisio: Yes, it seems to be correct. And yes, it's a very big chicken-egg problem (not the only one, but a very good one indeed!). Of course, "it is generally assumed" that the genetic code was at first implemented in some other way. As "it is generally assumed" that the genetic code was at first simpler. As "it is generally assumed" that sometime in the past there was some biochemical connection between codons and aminoacids, that became mysteriously symbolic "as time goes by". Many things "are generally assumed". None of them with any support from observable facts. You know, those little things upon which science should be built. However, rvb8 and friends are certainly "groaning" at this point, so out of compassion I will stop here. :) gpuccio
gpuccio: Thank you for the very comprehensive comment. Please, let me take side with your politely dissenting interlocutor and point to item 7. Do you realize that what you wrote implies a "chicken-egg" conundrum? Do you realize the magnitude of the problem your statement 7 generates? Would you mind reviewing that statement to ensure it is correct indeed? :) Dionisio
rvb8: Try to comment on these simple arguments: 1) The genetic code is symbolic, because there is no direct biochemical connection between codons and aminoacids. This is a fact. 2) Symbolic systems are known only in designed artifacts (or in biology). 3) Being a symbolic system, it cannot work without a translation apparatus. 4) The biological translation apparatus is extremely complex, including the ribosome, mRNAs, tRNAs, the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and much more. 5) However, the part of the apparatus where the symbolic connection is established are the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. It's them that bind, separately, the correct tRNA and the correct aminoacid, according to the genetic code. 6) The 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are very complex proteins, each of them made of hundreds of aminoacids, with a length ranging from about 200 to more than 1200 AAs. 7) The 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are obviously synthesized using the information in their DNA genes. That specific information is obviously written in codons, using the DNA code. Therefore, the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, which are the only known repository of the DNA code, need the DNA code to exist. 8) There is absolutely no real theory of how such a complex symbolic system, with all the inherent functional information and irreducible complexity, could have originated in a non design way. These are scientific facts. I would appreciated your comments about them, if they are understandable enough to you. Or, if you prefer, you can "just groan", which is probably what you do best. gpuccio
'You are surely a canary for the next person, perhaps someone who hasn't sold themselves out.' 'canary'? What does this reference mean? Like the canary in the coal mine? Why am I like that? What, 'next person'? Sold myself out? To what? To whom? And that is just the last sentence. 'My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be 'about' an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?' Can't answer, sorry far too sciencey for me. I do have several questions about the question however. 1.) "a codon cannot be 'about' an amino acid." Is this acceptable biological termanology? 2.) If you gave this question to Nick Matzke or other biologists, would it be taken seriously, or would they, as I suspect, just groan? 3.) You connect 'tRNA adapter' to 'systematic association'. Again, is that acceptable use of biological terms? Would a biologist say, 'good question', or would, as I suspect, they too, grind their teeth? All the posts that are here use the same language. And not being a scientist, and being suspicious of anyone here claiming to be, I simply can't answer until you frame your question so that an interested lay person could answer. Scientists frame these sorts of questions all the time, why can ID folk, never ask an actually interesting question? P.S. I don't, 'spit and hiss', nor do I 'sneer', that is strictly you people. I do mock occasionally, but that's only because you make it so easy. Mostly I'm simply exasperated. But IDs constant efforts to say the same thing again, and again, in different ways, is also fascinating. rvb8
A shocking surprise, rv. You spit and hiss about science discussions, but when asked if a universally-accepted pillar of science is correct, you throw your hands in the air and flail them about. You're then forced to peddle the preposterous excuse that you don't understand the question, and wouldn't be qualified to answer it anyway. If your excuse is to be believed, then universal observations (which have spanned the entire history of science) are apparently among those things that you are (by your own estimation) not intellectually fit to discuss. Normally, I might ask you to take note of just how weak and silly your position is, but in your case it's probably best to just let you resume your charade. You are surely a canary for the next person, perhaps someone who hasn't sold themselves out. Upright BiPed
ba77, You kick butt! You need to assemble all your vast knowledge into a book. Or create some kind of ID reference web site with a topical index so ID supporters can quickly find the documentation they need to make a point regarding one of the many aspects of the debate. God bless you, ba77! harry
Joshua, "not just classicical ID, vs old fashioned Darwinism." And your entire purpose, blog, and intentions, are laid bare. What is, 'old fashioned Darwinism' exactly? Do you mean Evolutionary Biology? You see, your new take, is actually, not! When you said this was going to be a fresh approach, and would concentrate on the science (good), and philosophy of science, (bad; how this helps investigation elludes me, despite the many words wasted in attempting to justify it), I thought, 'okay, I'll give this a whirl'. And now, in your postings here you have shown your true intentions; just another poorly thought out hit job on science. rvb8
I'm sorry Upright I can't answer your question for two reasons; 1, I'm not a scientist and am unqualified, and 2, what the hell are you talking about? Try this; when I read Coyne, Shubin, Dawkins, Hawking etcetera, I can follow their evidence and argument with ease. I hope I'm not a fool, but your several hundred word question is simply beyond me; unless of course it is a pure mish-mash of psudo-scientific babble, with a few referances to real scientists and sciency acronyms. Could you make your future questions less than one thousand words and not interpret that which you clearly understand poorly? This is my main criticism of all ID writing, it is so vague, and unclear. "Your Inner Fish", was a masterpiece of a science writer, writing and explaining a discovery. You may not agree with "The Selfish Gene", but its ideas are clearly presented. Please, please, try to do the same! rvb8
bFast, thank you for your comment. I can assure you that you will be most welcome to dialogue on my blog. I hope to engage more on here as well, and when I do publish stuff I'll be cross posting here. All views will be welcome (apart from commenters who are abusive or trolling). I'm a fairly typical ID proponent, but as I've said I don't want one sided discussions and as you've pointed out there is a vast spectrum of views (not just classical ID vs old fashioned Darwinism). I'll be defending most aspects of ID yet not always agreeing with everything every IDer has said. And I'll be sympathetically exploring what critics say at the same time as explaining why I think they're profoundly mistaken. As for UCD, I will be exploring that issue at many points, though it won't be my focus, since it isn't directly relevant to ID. Personally I'm agnostic about it at the moment, but that could change either way. As much as I love this forum, I agree it can be too fast. I'll say right off that I'll likely be a slower, yet detailed writer, rather than a 'little and often' one. Primarily because I want depth rather than quantity (this site manages to balance those two quite often), and also because I have several jobs, family and other things to attend to. As I said to 'News' that's not necessarily a terrible thing for blogging, so long as your not expecting thousands of readers every week. I'm happy just to write and publish for my own enjoyment though, and if people read and interact with it then that's a bonus. I look forward to further interaction with you. Joshua G
AK can you spin me a Darwinian just so story for this finding? They seem to have left the usual Darwinian spin out of the article:
Discovering what keeps cellular cargo on track - November 17, 2016 Excerpt: ,,,researchers, for the first time, have identified how plants' largest cell factory moves to maintain vital functions,,,, "Healthy cells operate as smoothly as the best Minecraft city imaginable," said Federica Brandizzi, MSU Foundation Professor of plant biology. "The miniature cities are fully equipped with all of the facilities, or organelles, that are necessary for a smooth-running operation." Administration center, factories and even recycling centers are all there, running at 100-percent efficiency. In contrast to the infrastructures and city buildings in cells, however, the organelles, are not built on static foundations. They are huge, mobile cellular cargos that travel rapidly to reach resources and deliver products. When organelles go off the rails and mobility is disrupted, bad things happen. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161117150333.htm
AhmedKiaan: "In other words, science will continue to be done by actual scientists." Of course scientists do science. Can you do better than state trivialities? "The ID contribution will be to philosophize, and make up new acronyms, and post YouTube links." Stupid. ID is a new paradigm, which will help get rid of the old, biased paradigm of neo darwinian evolution as an explanation for biological complexity. Have you ever heard of the problem of competing paradigms in philosophy of science? No, it seems that you consider "philosophizing" as a waste of time... Shame on you. The simple fact is: people like rvb8, and probably you, seem to believe that facts that are collected in scientific research belong to some ideology: if they are collected by people who believe in neo darwinism, they belong to neo darwinism, and so on. What a poor, gross conception of science! Good scientists are collecting daily new knowledge about the functional information in biology, and the amazing new levels of control and functionality that would have been completely unthinkable just a few years ago. Do those facts belong to neo darwinism? Certainly not. They are, indeed, daily confirmations that ID is the only paradigm that can explain the facts. At the same time, the same huge research which is changing all our views about biology has been completely unable to give any support to neo darwinism, a theory which is as unsupported by facts today as it was decades ago. These are the simple facts. You, go on with your propaganda and your bad philosophizing about philosophizing. And go on evading all real scientific discussions that arise here. Just like always. gpuccio
rv says "A site dedicated purely to ID science? Great! It will be a first." . . . . . . rv, After you've demonstrated (with utmost clarity, for all to see) that you have no interest in discussions of science, it makes you look rather silly to keep harping about science. With such obvious disconnectedness on display, you've put yourself in the position of being taken with a grain of salt.
11/09/16 rv, I believe you are one of the people I saw lamenting a lack of scientific topics on UD, so I have a science question for you. In 1955, Francis Crick proposed a yet unknown set of “adapter” molecules that he predicted would be necessary to connect the pattern of nucleic acids in DNA to the amino acids they specify during translation. Three years later Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik discovered the tRNA adapters that Crick predicted would exist. They also found the complex proteins (aaRS) that are required to bind those tRNA with their individual amino acid cargo – establishing the Genetic Code. This all makes sense with the physicalist axiom (as naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg puts it) that “no clump of matter is about any other clump of matter”. In other words, a codon in DNA is obviously not “about” the amino acid it specifies during translation, and thus, Crick’s adapter molecule is required to establish a systematic association within the process of translation. And of course, all of this is exactly what is found inside the cell; there is an “adapter” tRNA for every amino acid, and there is an aaRS to load every adapter with its correct amino acid (in accordance with the code). The association of anticodon-to-amino acid is made when the aaRS loads the correct amino acid to the tRNA adapter (establishing the genetic code), and then the codon-to-anticodon association is made when the charged tRNA adapter enters the ribosome to deliver its amino acid cargo (to be bound to the new protein). None of this is even slightly controversial, and is taught in every biology textbook on the surface of the planet. In the genetic translation process, the sequence of codons in DNA establishes the order of amino acids to be bound to the nascent protein, and in a separate process, the aaRS establishes which amino acid will be associated with each codon. My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?
11/20/16 rv says: “This site purports to be a sounding board for empirical evidence of design; I have seen none, am seeing none, and will make an educated guess, will see none.” However: .
Rv, I believe you are one of the people I saw lamenting a lack of scientific topics on UD, so I have a science question for you. In 1955, Francis Crick proposed a yet unknown set of “adapter” molecules that he predicted would be necessary to connect the pattern of nucleic acids in DNA to the amino acids they specify during translation. Three years later Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik discovered the tRNA adapters that Crick predicted would exist. They also found the complex proteins (aaRS) that are required to bind those tRNA with their individual amino acid cargo – establishing the Genetic Code. This all makes sense with the physicalist axiom (as naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg puts it) that “no clump of matter is about any other clump of matter”. In other words, a codon in DNA is obviously not “about” the amino acid it specifies during translation, and thus, Crick’s adapter molecule is required to establish a systematic association within the process of translation. And of course, all of this is exactly what is found inside the cell; there is an “adapter” tRNA for every amino acid, and there is an aaRS to load every adapter with its correct amino acid (in accordance with the code). The association of anticodon-to-amino acid is made when the aaRS loads the correct amino acid to the tRNA adapter (establishing the genetic code), and then the codon-to-anticodon association is made when the charged tRNA adapter enters the ribosome to deliver its amino acid cargo (to be bound to the new protein). None of this is even slightly controversial, and is taught in every biology textbook on the surface of the planet. In the genetic translation process, the sequence of codons in DNA establishes the order of amino acids to be bound to the nascent protein, and in a separate process, the aaRS establishes which amino acid will be associated with each codon. My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?
No response thus far. :)
And still no response. Perhaps the third time is a charm? How about it rv, care to engage in a discussion of science? Upright BiPed
Joshua G: I repeat what gpuccio wrote @1:
Very interesting. Let us know.
Let me quote a famous scientist - very dear to Poland and France:
"Have no fear of perfection; you'll never reach it." "I am among those who think that science has great beauty."
This is from the Book of books:
"...but test everything; hold fast what is good." [1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV)]
Moreover, the presumption of Intelligent Design is far more than just a ‘narrative gloss', as Darwinian evolution is found to be, but is in fact ‘a driver of science':
“It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.” David Snoke – Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design – July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *”Negative feedback for stable operation.” *”Frequency filtering” for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *”Information storage” where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: “This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. ” *”Timing and synchronization,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *”Addressing,” where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *”Hierarchies of function,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *”Redundancy,” as organisms contain backup systems or “fail-safes” if primary essential systems fail. *”Adaptation,” where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, “These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way,” and “Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.”,,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that “just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little ‘junk.'” He explains, “Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible,” and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html
That Intelligent Design should be found to be 'a driver of science' should not be all that surprising since the presumption of Intelligent Design lays at the very foundation of modern science itself. Specifically, ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:.,,,
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination. It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be. Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
To reiterate, it would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be. The way that Darwinists try to get past this requirement of basic Theistic presumptions, in order to practice modern science in the first place, is that they, forgetting that they are assolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions, try to use bad liberal theology to argue that 'God would not have done it that way'.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
In other words, Darwinists are, in fact, Theologians practising bad liberal theology rather than scientists practising good science. Moreover, since they have no actual scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, and since science itself is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions, then this bad liberal theology within Darwinian evolution turns out to be absolutely essential to the fake facade that Darwinists put up pretending that evolution even qualifies as a rigorous science in the first place. Verse and Quote:
Jeremiah 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio - Shakespeare
As pointed out to AK in post 7,8, 10, and 11, Darwinian evolution is NOT even a real science in the first place but is more properly classified as a non-falsifiable pseudo-science. AK, being the atheistic troll that he is that could care less for the actual truth of the matter, completely ignored that damning fact and now further states this false claim:
In other words, science will continue to be done by actual scientists. The ID contribution will be to philosophize, and make up new acronyms, and post YouTube links. Just like always.
First off, a Darwinist putting on a lab coat and performing experiments in a lab does not make him a scientist any more than a man putting on a dress and performing sexual acts on other men makes him a woman. And much like a man having sex with other men will never bear a child to prove that he is, in fact, a woman, Darwinists in lab coats performing experiments in the lab have never bore, and will never bear, fruitful results that will prove Darwinian evolution is, in fact, a real science:
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).) “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988) "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – (4:32 minute mark) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWb8BaXoRc
Simply put, despite having billions of dollars in federal funding, and despite 'expelling' practically everyone from academia who does not toe the Darwinian line, Darwinists have never experimentally proven that Darwinian evolution is, in fact, true: Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is an atheist, calls Darwinian accounts ‘a variety of wishful speculations’. Specifically he states:
“,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
James Shapiro, the main founder of the anti neo-Darwinian group "The Third Way", makes an almost verbatim statement prior to Harold's statement:
“The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.
The late Stephen Jay Gould weighs in here on the evidence free ‘just-so stories’ of Darwinists and states “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
In fact, one of the main themes of many of Michael Behe’s talks is that ALL ‘grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination’:
“Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination” Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of this following video Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box)
The way that Darwinists give the false impression that experimental science supports Darwinian evolution is that, as Professor Skell stated, "Darwin's theory (is) brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." Here are a few notes backing that 'just a narrative gloss' assertion up:
Darwinian 'science' in a nutshell: Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/ Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin "Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. ... The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini
Moreover, it is impossible for Darwinists, in the peer reviewed literature, to describe the complexities of biological life without illegitimately using words that invoke agent causality or teleology:
The ‘Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist agrees with Talbott’s assessment:
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
"So, the answer to your strange question: “Where will you be getting your experimental research from?” is very easy and simple: from the scientific literature." In other words, science will continue to be done by actual scientists. The ID contribution will be to philosophize, and make up new acronyms, and post YouTube links. Just like always. AhmedKiaan
rvb8: Strange comments. You seem not to understand the basic importance of philosophy of science and epistemology in the ID debate. Strange indeed, because you should know all too well that the main (maybe the only) objections to ID that come forth, in the end, are religious and philosophical: methodological naturalism, and similar foolishness. You seem to have some religious adoration for labs and experiments, and easily forget the basic truth: experiments are necessary to collect facts, but facts need to be interpreted, and that's where theories arise. You seem to believe that labs and experiments are assets of some theory, but that's really silly: facts belong to all, and anyone can interpret them according to his scientific views. So, the answer to your strange question: "Where will you be getting your experimental research from?" is very easy and simple: from the scientific literature. And then, the last question: "If you are an ID advocate, could you describe your qualification for this role?" What qualification is necessary to be an advocate of a scientific theory? Again, the answer is easy and simple: none at all, except for the only qualification that is needed in any intellectual debate: good ideas. So, instead of asking for qualifications like any obtuse bureaucrat, just wait and read Joshua's, or anyone else's, ideas. Then you can comment with your own. As you can see, I did not need to know more about you or to read about your qualifications as an anti-ID advocate in order to comment about the ideas you expressed in your post. It was easy and simple. gpuccio
A site dedicated purely to ID science? Great! It will be a first. Too often here we are treated purely to philosophy (done poorly), or opinion. I'm only worried that you desribe it as dedicated to science and philosophy of science. This gives pause, as I have a sneeking suspicion a steady diet of a purely philosophical bent, will ensue. Where will you be getting your experimental research from? Do you have scientists collaborating? Will the posts regularly discuss new and unfolding areas of ID research? Are any labs, or teacing institutions involved? How often will you post? You say you have a fair ammount of work ready to present, does any of it explain experiments based on ID theories? Among other questions I would actually also like to know more about you. If you are an ID advocate, could you describe your qualification for this role? rvb8
Joshua G., I can't wait to dialog on your new blog. This blog is far too quick, in my opinion, at banning consenting voices. Theskepticalzone.com has too many voices, and too harsh of conversation for my taste. You said, "I intend to use it to explore all aspects of the ID conversation, documenting different perspectives in the debate" This I appreciate as I hold to a view that is not too popular around here -- I find the universal common descent argument to be compelling. This, of course, removes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve, which creates some theological challenges. I know that VJ Torley felt crushed around here for holding to a UCD perspective. I hope that the UCD view doesn't get lambasted on philosophical/religious grounds on your site. You also said, "turning a critical eye to both sides". I'm not quite sure how you can look at both sides of a multi-sided object. I guess that there are two major camps -- naturalistic and ID, but there is LOTS of variation within the ID camp, and definitely some within the naturalistic camp. bFast
Thanks News, and I hope I can add something to some of the discussions on here as well. There's no point in creating our own little bubbles. Yes I agree with that. We all need infrastructure :) Joshua G
Joshua G at 12, we are happy to have you aboard and do keep us posted. Post brief stories that link to your work there and I will send them out in our promo packages to Facebook. My point was that the blogs that survive at all have infrastructure. Infrastructure matters. News
News, of course that may be true. Blogs start and stop all the time, but nothing lasts forever. Still, many bloggers manage to keep going over a long period of time, without any external support. I don't promise to be a consistent blogger, churning out tons of material every day. Firstly because my main reason for writing is primarily for my own enjoyment. Secondly, it's not necessary to have an all or nothing approach. It's fine to just write and publish when one has time, and still remain an 'active' blogger (even though that can mean less readers). There was a time when UD was much more vibrant, with much more in depth articles being published by many different writers. That's just the way things go. Anyway, as I said I'm still a big fan of this forum as well as ENV. I would hope that I still have the support of other ID folks, especially on here. Surely we should be advocating as much varied discussion of ID as possible and not just wishing to limit it's dissemination to two already established venues. Joshua G
And following in Lakatos footsteps, Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of some of the major false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the ‘core’ of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were using Lakatos’s demarcation criteria.
Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home
And here is a broader overview of the many failed predictions of naturalism/materialism, in comparison to the successful predictions of Theism, in regards to the major scientific discoveries that have now been revealed by modern science:
Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism – a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video https://youtu.be/QQ9iyCmPmz8
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, then that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of an unfalsifiable pseudo-science:
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk
Of related note: In so far as Darwinian evolution is dependent on the premises of reductive materialism, and regardless of whether Darwinists ever personally accept the falsification or not, Darwinian evolution is now empirically falsified by advances in quantum biology. Specifically, reductive materialism cannot explain the 'non-local' effect of quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology:
Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8 Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
i.e. Quantum information is experimentally shown to be irreducible to reductive materialistic explanations. And as such, since Darwinian evolution is based on reductive materialistic premises, then Darwinian evolution is experimentally falsified as the scientific explanation for molecular biology:
The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Moreover, even if one tosses straight up empirical falsification out the window, and tries to use ‘predictive power’ as a demarcation for determining whether something is ‘scientific’ or not, (Imre Lakatos), then Darwinian evolution, even on that much looser demarcation criteria, fails to qualify as a science but is still more properly classified as a pseudo-science:
A Philosophical Question…Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought Excerpt: So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
Imre Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a pseudo-scientific theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he (Lakatos) also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
AhmedKiaan: As already discussed, I am eager to witness your personal constructive contributions as soon as some scientific issue is discussed here. You are certainly welcome to comment at my next OP. Be sure you will not find religious discussions there. gpuccio
Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell – May 2012 – article with video Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/ Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds – 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Moreover, empirical evidence itself tells us that “Genetic Entropy”, the tendency of biological systems to drift towards decreasing complexity and decreasing information content, holds true as an overriding rule for biological adaptations over long periods of time:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information - Loss-of-Function Mutations (Michael Behe) by Paul Giem 2015 - video (Behe - Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? - May 2013 - Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010 Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution,, (via John Sanford and company) http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, (in fact it is almost directly contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
AhmedKiaan, given your belief that you are defending the science of Darwinian evolution from the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design, it might surprise you to know that the shoe is squarely on the other foot. The fact of the matter is that Darwinian evolution is a untestable, and therefore unfalsifiable, pseudo-science whereas, on the other hand, Intelligent Design is very much a testable, and therefore, falsifiable, science.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudo-science instead of a real science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science have. A rigid mathematical basis to test against in order to potentially falsify it.
Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting – 02/08/2016 Suzan Mazur: Peter Saunders in his interview comments to me said that neo-Darwinism is not a theory, it’s a paradigm and the reason it’s not a theory is that it’s not falsifiable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/john-dupre-interview-deep_b_9184812.html Peter Saunders is Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London. Peter Saunders has been applying mathematics in biology for over 40 years, in microbiology and physiology as well as in development and evolution. He has been a critic of neo-Darwinism for almost as long. “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php
In fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely. That is to say, as far as math is concerned, evolution is 'statistically impossible'. Here is one example:
"In light of Doug Axe's number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail should we believe that is the way that life arose?" Stephen Meyer - 46:19 minute mark - Darwin's Doubt - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0&feature=player_detailpage#t=2778
The primary reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the physical universe for Darwinists to build a rigid mathematical basis on:
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012 Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-ernst-in/ WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any known universal law to appeal to, as other overarching theories of science have, the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity/information can be easily had:
The Common Sense Law of Physics Granville Sewell – March 2016 Excerpt: (The) “compensation” argument, used by every physics text which discusses evolution and the second law to dismiss the claim that what has happened on Earth may violate the more general statements of the second law, was the target of my article “Entropy, Evolution, and Open Systems,” published in the proceedings of the 2011 Cornell meeting Biological Information: New Perspectives (BINP). In that article, I showed that the very equations of entropy change upon which this compensation argument is based actually support, on closer examination, the common sense conclusion that “if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.” The fact that order can increase in an open system does not mean that computers can appear on a barren planet as long as the planet receives solar energy. Something must be entering our open system that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example: computers. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/the_common_sens102725.html
Ahmed @2, you may want to visit biosemioses.org. Origenes
AhmedKiaan at 3: As noted earlier, trolls are more interesting when they at least try to get their facts right. Darwin's God is the personal blog of Biola biophysics prof Cornelius Hunter. Hunter is a DI fellow but that is a somewhat loose relationship that mainly commits the parties to not dissing each other in public. Change the batteries in your tinfoil hat. That is why your hat is beeping, you know. Joshua G, the awkward problem with blogs is that they are non-economic volunteer projects that tend to last until one or a few individuals get drawn away for various reasons. ENV is the DI's blog and UD is a non-profit corporation explicitly dedicated to using donations to maintain a news site on ID-related issue from an ID-friendly perspective. To the extent that either of us has more staying power than most, it is the back office that matters. News
Thanks for the comment Ahmed. Well there have been in the past and this forum and ENV do a good job at covering some of the science. You can't deny there has been much high quality scientific discourse in these places, even if they are mixed up with ethical and political issues. Joshua G
Darwin's God is probably a DI front, but that's the only one I can find besides UD. Joshua if you have ID content the blog runners here would probly love you to contribute it. AhmedKiaan
" Yes, there are already plenty of good, active blogs and websites that cover this area so it isn’t as if another one is necessary, but I do think I can add something to the discussion." No, there aren't. If someone can point me to some thriving ID science blogs, please do. And actual scientific discussion, I don't mean Discovery Institute Press Release pseudoblogs, or religion blogs that mention this stuff. ID science blogs. AhmedKiaan
Joshua: Very interesting. Let us know. :) gpuccio

Leave a Reply