Evolution

Evolutionary explanations to resist — For ease of conversation, I here define a “threat” as a macro-evolutionary explanation that inherently threatens the successful communication of the biotic message. (I do not mean threat in any other sense.) Evolutionary explanations are not all equal. Some are more potent at explaining-away data; some are limited in scope; some are weak; and some are unscientific. In other words, some evolutionary explanations are more threatening than others. There is some tension between the three design-goals claimed in Message Theory, so tradeoffs must be made in order to approach an optimal solution. Message Theory claims life’s design should resist a given evolutionary explanation in proportion to the threat it poses. If a given evolutionary explanation Read More ›

Here’s our newest paper: “Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information,” by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, forthcoming chapter in Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, eds., The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009). Click here for pdf of paper. 1 The Creation of Information 2 Biology’s Information Problem 3 The Darwinian Solution 4 Computational vs. Biological Evolution 5 Active Information 6 Three Conservation of Information Theorems 7 The Law of Conservation of Information 8 Applying LCI to Biology 9 Conclusion: “A Plan for Experimental Verification” ABSTRACT: Laws of nature are universal in scope, hold with unfailing regularity, and receive support from a wide Read More ›

Sternberg needs to write a book debunking junk DNA. Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse’s Eye By Richard Sternberg www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig We often hear from Darwinians that the biological world is replete with examples of shoddy engineering, or, as they prefer to put it, bad design. One such case of really poor construction is the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye. As we all know, the retina of our eyes is configured all wrong because the cells that gather photons, the rod photoreceptors, are behind two other tissue layers. Light first strikes the ganglion cells and then passes by or through the bipolar cells before reaching the rod photoreceptors. Surely, a child could have arranged the system better Read More ›

 On 31 March, I gave one of the keynote addresses at the annual meeting of the British Sociological Association’s Religion Study Group in Durham. This meant that I could not watch the first airing of ‘Did Darwin Kill God?’ on BBC2.  I recommend that you watch this show over the next couple of days, while it’s still available on-line at the BBC website. It may be the most sophisticated treatment of this general topic on television, though as you’ll see from my comments below I found it profoundly unsatisfying. The person who scripted and presents the programme is Conor Cunningham, an academic theologian, about whom more below. Even those who disagree with his take on things – as I do – should welcome what he has done here. The challenge is to do better. Read More ›

A short article in the popular press reports that certain sauropods with long necks could not have held those necks upright. I read the article, leaned back in my chair and did a lot of serious thinking. . .
Read More ›

From Nature:

Classic behavioural studies flawed

Nobel prizewinner took short cuts to show that the way gulls feed is instinctive.

John Whitfield

One of the most famous experiments in biology isn’t the solid piece of work it’s usually portrayed as, say Dutch researchers who have replicated the study. Instead, it’s more like an anecdote that became slightly more legendary each time its author retold the story.

The work in question was done in 1947 by the Dutch researcher Niko Tinbergen on the begging behaviour of herring-gull chicks. At the time, the dominant idea in animal behaviour was that learning was all-important. Tinbergen argued that animals come into the world with instincts already adapted to their environments.

Adult gulls have a red spot on their lower bill. Tinbergen, who shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1973, presented wild chicks with model birds bearing spots and measured how much they pecked at the model.

The story that made it into the textbooks is that chicks have a powerful innate tendency to peck at red dots, which has evolved as a way of getting their parents to feed them. The original paper, however, shows that Tinbergen found that chicks actually pecked more at a black dot than a red one.

In a follow-up paper written in 1949, Tinbergen concluded that this strange finding resulted from a mistake in his methods. He had tested red, black, blue, white and yellow spots, but he presented the ‘natural’ red spot much more often than any other. The chicks, he decided, became habituated to the red spot and stopped pecking at it.

Of course, Tinbergen has his defenders: Read More ›

Dr. Guliuzza gives key arguments of detecting design in sexual reproduction, in contrast to evolution and order caused by natural law.
————————
Creationist speaker makes case for intelligent design Dan Boyer, Michigan Tech Lode 03/25/2009
Dr. Randy Guliuzza

. . .asserted that he was not making an argument about design based on the absence of information but from form and function. “If reproduction isn’t fully functional right from the beginning there are no offspring” and nothing for natural selection to work on, he said. Read More ›

I periodically get emails from individuals who are sympathetic to ID but then read Francis Collins’ THE LANGUAGE OF GOD and find themselves wondering what to think. Thus I recently received the following email: Dear Dr. Dembski, I … have read, I think, three of your books — the most recent “The Design Revolution”. I have been thoroughly convinced of your position in these books. I was encouraged by a friend of many years, who was Professor of Science at … for 40 years … to consider the book by Francis S. Collins — “The Language of God”, which I have just read. This was in exchange for his reading “The Design Revolution.” I’ve not heard from him after reading Read More ›

Here’s a quote from THE CHRISTIAN ORDER going back more than a decade: The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists Despite being widely accepted even at the highest level in the Church, there has never been any authoritative teaching approving of evolution. Hence the reaction of the worldwide media to the Pope’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 25th 1996. The ambiguous phrase that evolution is “more than just a theory” was greeted with glee by the materialistic press as an official admission of the collapse, under the weight of scientific research, of the Church’s traditional beliefs in Adam and Eve and any literal sense of Genesis.(37) Yet by no stretch of wishful thinking can the Pope’s message, arguably Read More ›

Here is another way to use ID: Nature 458, 305-309 (19 March 2009) Ronald L. Koder1,2,3, J. L. Ross Anderson1,2, Lee A. Solomon1, Konda S. Reddy1, Christopher C. Moser1 & P. Leslie Dutton1 The principles of natural protein engineering are obscured by overlapping functions and complexity accumulated through natural selection and evolution. Completely artificial proteins offer a clean slate on which to define and test these protein engineering principles, while recreating and extending natural functions. Here we introduce this method with the design of an oxygen transport protein, akin to human neuroglobin. Beginning with a simple and unnatural helix-forming sequence with just three different amino acids, we assembled a four-helix bundle, positioned histidines to bis-histidine ligate haems, and exploited helical Read More ›

Reuben Kendall, freshman at UT-Martin, has written a thoughtful view point regarding Evolution vs Intelligent Design. He raises important points on metaphysical presumptions vs data. He raises the question of Academic Freedom which incorporates the foundational unalienable freedoms of speech and religion. May I encourage readers to write editorials and viewpoints raising such issues and standing up for our inalienable rights.
———————————————-
Academic freedom for creation explanation
Reuben Kendall, Issue date: 3/17/09 Section: Viewpoints

As a freshman, I haven’t been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don’t take very long to notice.

In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.

I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections.
But I have learned that if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.
Read More ›

On pp. 47-48 of THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, Richard Dawkins gives two runs of his WEASEL program (note that there were typos in both initial seeds — one had 27 characters, the other 29 whereas they should have 28; I’ve corrected that). Here are the two runs using the Courier typeface, which assigns equal width to each character (spaces are represented by asterisks): WDL*MNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P WDLTMNLT*DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO*P MDLDMNLS*ITJISWHRZREZ*MECS*P MELDINLS*IT*ISWPRKE*Z*WECSEL METHINGS*IT*ISWLIKE*B*WECSEL METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*I*WEASEL METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL Y*YVMQKZPFJXWVHGLAWFVCHQXYPY Y*YVMQKSPFTXWSHLIKEFV*HQYSPY YETHINKSPITXISHLIKEFA*WQYSEY METHINKS*IT*ISSLIKE*A*WEFSEY METHINKS*IT*ISBLIKE*A*WEASES METHINKS*IT*ISJLIKE*A*WEASEO METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEP METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL These runs are incomplete. The first, according to Dawkins, required 43 iterations to converge, the second 64 (Dawkins omitted the other iterates to save space). As you can see, by using the Courier font, one can read up from the target sequence METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL, Read More ›

The “Msx1, a feedback activator of Bmp4 expression” with the Osr2 control gene has been discovered to switch between single vs multiple sets of teeth. E.g. distinguishing between humans and sharks. This efficient compact control mechanism appears to fit well within an ID Design paradigm. The serious cleft pallet defects caused by errors further suggest an irreducibly complex system.

What evidence might there be for random mutation and “selection” to form such a complex yet elegant control system so “early” in evolution?

Finding genes that make teeth grow all in a row By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Thursday, February 26, 2009

Ever wonder why sharks get several rows of teeth and people only get one? . . .A single gene appears to be in charge, Read More ›

To take the quiz — or to play along — here’s your background information, and no cheating by looking into cell biology textbooks or using Google or PubMed. 1. Topoisomerases are essential enzymes, found in all organisms, which solve topological problems arising from the double-helical structure of DNA. Now, assume: 2. All organisms on Earth share a common ancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). OK — quiz time. Given (1) and (2), what should we expect to find, with respect to the homology of topoisomerases, when we examine organisms descended from LUCA in different parts of the Tree of Life? Multiple choice: A) Homologous topoisomerases B) Non-homologous topoisomerases C) Can’t say. Make your best guess, and then go here: Read More ›