Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Convergent evolution

It’s Sunday morning so I get to talk about the praying mantis, right?

Ah yes, the deniable Darwin. It’s been eighteen years since I was having lunch with one of the smartest people I knew, in Toronto. He made me come back to his office to wait while he photocopied “The Deniable Darwin” for me to read. And get back to him and tell him what I thought. Read More ›

What are the Odds?

An expert in “frog evolution” has demonstrated that frogs in different continents “evolved” the same sorts of characteristics. Now just ask yourself: what are the odds that “evolution,” which works via random processes, would “evolve” the same kinds of characteristics on different continents? Yet, that is what our evolutionary biologist friends would ask us to believe. Do you believe? Do I hear an ‘Amen’? I guess not. Yes, biogeography might explain some of this, but not in the cases our authors looked at. Now, given that DNA is an information resource (prescribed by, and within, the genome), ID would fully expect that the common genome of the frog family would express itself in similar ways–even across continents–given that “new” information Read More ›

A software engineer on convergent evolution

High rates of convergent evolution are only “incredible” if we simply assume as an article of faith that there is no design, and that therefore there is nothing to research. It shall remain then, forever, incredible. No matter why the design exists. A price paid, shall we say, for dogmatism killing curiosity. Read More ›

Theology According to P.Z. Myers

Over on The Panda’s Thumb blog, Darwinian apologist P.Z. Myers recently posted a pejorative laden critique of a review article by Casey Luskin. Luskin was responding to a recent New York Times article on a study purporting to show how certain genes in fish might hold an important clue on how fins turned to feet. I won’t rehearse the articles here, you can read them in the links. Rather, I want to look a bit more closely at Myer’s critique of Luskin’s article and the supposedly “scientific” problems he has with Luskin. He begins by highlighting a quote from Luskin’s article where Luskin writes, “Hox genes are known to be widely conserved among vertebrates, so the fact that homology was Read More ›