Evolution

Now and again I’m asked to write the foreword to an ID book. Here’s a foreword I recently completed (I leave off the contributors and title so that Darwinists don’t sabotage the book before it sees the light of day): Read More ›

Jonathan wells asked me to post the following at UD: Hated by the Right People On April 2, Bill posted a comment by me [1] about a recent press release from the University of Bath. In my comment I made two basic points. First, evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”) – which is currently all the rage among Darwinists – has not lived up to its promise. Despite claims by some of its practitioners to have plugged the last remaining major gap in evolutionary theory – namely, the origin of major innovations such as new organs and body plans – evo-devo has not provided an experimentally confirmed explanation of even one such innovation. Second, one of evo-devo’s most widely advertised claims has Read More ›

Molecular Mechanisms of Antibacterial Multidrug Resistance Cell Magazine 22 March 2007 Michael N. Alekshun and Stuart B. Levy Schering-Plough Research Institute, 2015 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance, Department of Molecular Biology & Microbiology and Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA Available online 22 March 2007 My emphasis. Treatment of infections is compromised worldwide by the emergence of bacteria that are resistant to multiple antibiotics. Although classically attributed to chromosomal mutations, resistance is most commonly associated with extrachromosomal elements acquired from other bacteria in the environment. These include different types of mobile DNA segments, such as plasmids, transposons, and integrons. However, intrinsic mechanisms not commonly specified Read More ›

I asked Jonathan Wells to put together the following brief update on evo-devo.

A March 30 press release from the University of Bath quoted evolutionary biologist Ronald A. Jenner as saying: “Since its inception, some workers feel that evo-devo hasn’t quite lived up to its early expectations.”

This is an understatement, since evo-devo has not provided an experimentally confirmed explanation of even a single case of macroevolutionary change. Yet Jenner’s sober assessment contrasts sharply with the extravagant boasting of Darwinist Sean B. Carroll: “Evo Devo reveals that macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large… We now have a very firm grasp of how development is controlled. We can explain how tool kit proteins shape form, that tool kit genes are shared by all animals, and that differences in form arise from changing the way they are used.” (Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo, Norton 2005, pp. 291, 295)

Maybe Jenner and Carroll should talk… Read More ›

Ted Davis, a historian of science at Messiah College, used to be part of a list I moderate. He has some good insights into the history of science (especially into the work of Robert Boyle), but he consistently misses the mark concerning ID. Here is a nice synopsis of his view of ID (also with a jab at UD). It is written to Pim van Meurs, as a mentor would write to his disciple. The short of his view is that ID is a reaction to the scientific materialism of Richard Dawkins, which it tries to displace by setting up a new science, which is really just a disguised form of religion. His counsel is to rise above the fray Read More ›

Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins are at it again, however not face to face this time, but as guests on alternate days on NPR’s ‘Fresh Air’ with Terry Gross. She asks pertinent questions but as always, remains objective, taking no position on either side. In Wednesday’s interview, Dawkins takes a moment reading from page 15 of his book, to clear up any question of Einstein having theistic views, but rather, as he himself embraces, having merely a breathtaking admiration and respect for the Cosmos, but from purely naturalistic origins. Dawkins paints a picture of mankind’s progress, with science and culture at the forefront, providing a humanistic view of what we have achieved, and stating that it is “demeaning, to retreat Read More ›

Here’s an article on evolving hardware developed by Norwegian scientists. Favorite quote: “Every creature in nature is a product of evolution, and did I mention that creationism is just bull? What the team has done is add evolution to hardware (Norwegian), all hardware that you and I have used so far is made the creationism way, it’s made and can not be changed at runtime through evolution. All changes to existing hardware have to be made through software.” There’s not much detail in this article, but let me venture a guess: when the details come out, we’ll find that intelligent design (which includes evolutionary optimization) outshines unintelligent evolution at every turn. Read More ›

Granville Sewell asked me to post this: “The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe” A Preview of W.E.Loennig’s Part II By Granville Sewell Darwin’s story of how the giraffe got its long neck is perhaps the most popular and widely-told story of evolution. It is popular because it seems plausible: giraffes with slightly longer necks enjoyed a slight selective advantage in reaching the higher leaves of trees, and so over the ages these slight neck elongations accumulated, resulting in the modern giraffe. In fact, I used the giraffe story myself in my Mathematical Intelligencer article (at www.discovery.org/csc) as an example of purely quantitative change, that natural selection possibly could explain, as opposed to the origins of new organs and new systems Read More ›

For whatever reason, the people at richarddawkins.net put me on their mailing list and sent me an invitation some time back to write a birthday greeting for Richard Dawkins, who celebrates his 66th birthday today. Go to richarddawkins.net/happybirthdayRD, and you’ll find birthday greetings from Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, P.Z. Myers, Michael Shermer, etc. But my birthday greeting is nowhere to be found. Here’s the panegyric I sent in a few weeks back (yes, I’ve posted it at UD before; note that I cribbed from Harry Jaffa, Daniel Dennett, and Barbara Kingsolver). I figure just in case the ID thing doesn’t work out, I’ll have a backup . . . . There are rare times and places, in the illustrious history Read More ›

A recent disagreement about the critical importance of gut flora to animal health led me to look for research into germ-free animals. GF animals have been available for research for about 50 years and initially they lived very short lives. The decrease in longevity was eventually traced to lack of critical enzymes in their diet. In order to remain GF their food was sterilized at high temperatures (essentially autoclaved) which caused the needed enzymes to break down. Once their dietary requirements were established an unexpected result emerged – GF animals live twice as long as controls receiving the same complete diet but not housed in sterile conditions. Germ Free Animals Germ-free animals were obtained by cesarean section and maintained in Read More ›

Two days ago I commented on a post at evolutionnews.org that seemed to catch Ken Miller red-handed in misrepresenting my work on specified complexity (go here for my post). Specifically, on a BBC program titled THE WAR ON SCIENCE, Miller is seen, right after I was shown speaking on probabilities, commenting on the use of probabilities by ID proponents to underwrite ID. Given what I’ve written on this topic and given what Miller said on the program, if he were commenting on my work, there’s no question it would be a blatant misrepresentation. Now Miller is claiming that he was not commenting on my work at all. Rather, this was all the BBC’s fault. Miller claims that through bad editing, Read More ›

SMU appears upset about the Darwin vs. Design conference taking place in April and reported here yesterday (go here). The article below in today’s Dallas Morning News says that the anthropology department at SMU wrote to the administration: “These are conferences of and for believers and their sympathetic recruits…” Doesn’t the “M” in SMU refer to “Methodist” and aren’t Methodists believers in God? Is SMU’s anthropology department committed to hiring anti-God faculty?

SMU profs protest intelligent design conference
11:40 AM CDT on Saturday, March 24, 2007
By JEFFREY WEISS / The Dallas Morning News
jweiss@dallasnews.com
SOURCE: www.dallasnews.com

Professors opposed to the Bush library aren’t the only angry faculty members at Southern Methodist University this week.

Science professors upset about a presentation on “Intelligent Design” fired blistering letters to the administration, asking that the event be shut down.

The “Darwin vs. Design” conference, co-sponsored by the SMU law school’s Christian Legal Society, will say that a designer with the power to shape the cosmos is the best explanation for aspects of life and the universe. The event is produced by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based organization that says it has scientific evidence for its claims.

The anthropology department at SMU begged to differ:

“These are conferences of and for believers and their sympathetic recruits,” said the letter sent to administrators by the department. “They have no place on an academic campus with their polemics hidden behind a deceptive mask.”

Similar letters were sent by the biology and geology departments.

The university is not going to cancel the event, interim provost Tom Tunks said Friday. The official response is a statement that the event to be held in McFarlin Auditorium April 13-14 is not endorsed by the school: Read More ›