Evolution

How man’s best friend overcame laws of natural evolution Jan Battles A GENETICIST says he may have solved the mystery of how 350 breeds of dog evolved from a single ancestor, the grey wolf. Matthew Webster of the Smurfit Institute of Genetics at Trinity College, Dublin, and colleagues at Uppsala University, Sweden, say the domestication of dogs may be allowing them to override the natural laws governing evolution. They suggest natural selection, which ensures the survival of the fittest and weeds out genetic mutations that don’t provide a survival advantage, was relaxed when dogs became domesticated. Living with people allowed harmful genetic variations to flourish that would never have survived in the wild. This interference with nature could also explain Read More ›

For your further amusement from a man who just doesn’t know when to stop. From: RJDownard@snip Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:39:30 EDT Subject: Uncommon Descent indeed! To: william.dembski@snip Dear Bill You take “all responsibility for any errors” in Coulter’s evolution chapters. Your words, not mine. Coulter has written what she has written. Either you are willing to defend each of her published assertions, or you may repudiate them. You have done neither. Thus the questions I asked remain. As amply evidenced by her prior works, Coulter can get confused entirely on her own. But it is also legitimate to wonder to what extent her published antievolution statements due to your proud tutoring? In my effort to resolve this point, Read More ›

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget that natural selection also built the chariot, toaster oven, and space shuttle. Go here for another case of nanodesign, unanticipated but readily rationalized by evolutionary theory: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/12/0321217&from=rss.

Ever get frustrated arguing with Darwinists about the illogic of their theory? It’s like arguing with Ma & Pa Kettle about the finer points of arithmetic. I’m sure you’ll agree that the following video captures the dynamic of this debate (the only difference is that Ma & Pa Kettle are a lot more personable than most Darwinists): Ma & Pa Kettle doing math video.

Darwinists want to argue that natural selection is teleological. That cellular systems are able to ‘find’ solutions to life’s challenges because of the cell’s ability to reproduce. Using an analogy to mathematical problem solving, this is, in reality, no more than implementing an iterative process. And, as such, the question to be asked is: do we, even now, have a computer powerful enough, and a scientific sophistication capable enough, to find the kinds of solutions nature has found? Article after article are now appearing that tell us the answer is ‘no’.

But, prescinding from this question, let’s look at the latest such article, one dealing with ‘microtubules’. Microtubules form the very structure of cells; they give cells their 3-dimensional character. Cells couldn’t reproduce without microtubules. And what is it we see now? Microtubules represent an engineering skill that is completely beyond anything humans have been able to do so far. But, if microtubules are essential to cell reproduction, then how could this possibly be the result of an ‘iterative’ process? Who engineered this miracle of design? This is more than just a challenge for abiogenesis advocates. If ‘iterative’ processes are completely unable to explain what we see here, what does this say about our confidence in invoking them when it comes to other engineering marvels we find in Nature?

Read More ›

Here’s an email I received today that gave me a chuckle and that I thought might amuse the readers of this blog: From: RJDownard@snip Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:11:02 EDT Subject: Ann Coulter’s New Book To: william.dembski@snip Dear Bill I see that you, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski are commended by Ann Coulter in her new book apropos the “generous tutoring” she obtained at your hands. I am presently in the process of analyzing her anti-“Darwiniac” arguments point-by-point at Talk Reason (with courtesy postings at Panda’s Thumb as well) , and so naturally am curious about the extent and content of those tutorials, and to what degree those tutorials could have contributed to her written conclusions. I also notice Read More ›

Consider the following quote: Like Behe, William Dembski, and the wedge-pedigreed scientists of the Discovery Institute, Coulter never really takes on evolutionary biology, presumably because she is unwilling or unable to read recent, peer-reviewed research by actual biologists. Here is who wrote it: Jennie Lightweis-Goff is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Rochester. Her forthcoming single-authored publications include “Sins of Commitment” in Senses of Cinema (July 2006). Phillip Lightweis-Goff is a self-employed artist, an activist for social change, and an avid student of history and anthropology. They live together in Rochester, New York. Here is the full article: http://www.countercurrents.org/goff100706.htm

Michael Shermer has a piece on confirmation bias in the current SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (go here). He writes: . . . In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We need similar controls for the confirmation bias in the arenas of law, business and politics. Judges and lawyers should call Read More ›

Here’s my proposal: XX = Paranoid Delusion YY = Mental Health I solicit other comparisons for this thread.

Robert Savillo, an unknown in the evo-ID wars, has entered the fray with an attack against Ann Coulter’s treatment of evolution in her new book Godless (go here for Savillo’s screed). Savillo takes me to task for letting Ann’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” pass editorial scrutiny: Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” Robert Savillo Media Matters for America June 2006 . . . According to the weblog of William Dembski, a supporter of intelligent design, all of the above-mentioned falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions can be attributed to his “generous tutoring.” The evidence reveals that Coulter’s two chapters on the theory of evolution display her own ignorance toward the subject while providing an avenue to make ad hominem attacks against scientists, progressives, and Read More ›

Evolution and Me ‘The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance’ GEORGE GILDER National Review July 17, 2006 . . . Turning to economics in researching my 1981 book Wealth & Poverty, I incurred new disappointments in Darwin and materialism. Forget God — economic science largely denies intelligent design or creation even by human beings. Depicting the entrepreneur as a mere opportunity scout, arbitrageur, or assembler of available chemical elements, economic theory left no room for the invention of radically new goods and services, and little room for economic expansion except by material “capital accumulation” or population growth. Accepted widely were Darwinian visions of capitalism as a dog-eat-dog zero-sum struggle impelled Read More ›

More for amusement than anything else, I sometimes check the latest reviews of my books and those of my colleagues on Amazon. Here’s the beginning and end of a review of Icons of Evolution (authored by my good friend Jonathan Wells) posted three days ago:

***********************************************
A review by a medical researcher, June 27, 2006
Reviewer: Ian R. Peters (Boulder, CO USA)

I want to make 2 things clear before I start discussing this book.

(1) I have read this book thoroughly. I have taken the time to analyze the
arguments that Jonathan Wells makes.

(2) I am a medical researcher and have quite a bit of background on this
subject. This is not to say that I’m infallible, because as Wells clearly
demonstrates a biology degree can mean that you can still be wayyy off base.
Still, I would like to point out that I have some knowledge of the subject.

Wells’ book is a product of someone who has little or no understanding of
the subject matter. A perfect example is his discussion on homology. Wells
tries to show that the argument for evolution is a circular one because, he
says, evolutionists use analogous structures as support for evolution and
vice versa. But the thing is, we biologists don’t use JUST homologous
structures as evidence for evolution. There’s a whole lot of evidence that
is taken into account including genetics, biochemical systems and
comparative embryonic analysis.

…[snip]…

The theory of evolution has helped us to better understand the world around
us, including how/why bacteria adapt to antibiotics and how we can fight
avian flu. Without it, I know that the work that I and countless others do
would not have any meaning. Modern biology has given us a lot and evolution
provides the framework for it all.

If you think this book is right and evolution is a work of fiction, then
just be glad that your doctor knows better. We need more trained biologists
in this country to help keep our world healthy and I fear works like this
one will deter young people from becoming productive scientists.
*****************************************

Curious, I looked up Ian R. Peters on the University of Colorado-Boulder web site (I found him here). He’s a 5th year senior (i.e., undergraduate) in biological sciences and philosophy.

Isn’t Darwinism wonderful? It empowers someone who has not yet earned a bachelor’s degree to call himself a “medical researcher” and tell Jonathan Wells — with a Ph.D. in biology and twenty years of experience in medical laboratories — that he has “little or no understanding of the subject matter.”

But Darwinism doesn’t merely empower. It also nourishes self-esteem. It’s why we desperately need courses in evolutionary logic:

Read More ›

Check out SALVO: http://www.salvomag.com. It’s hard-hitting and in-your-face without being ponderous. I love the “fake” ads, like The Center for Human Enhancement’s ad that features a stylized human head with the caption “be perfect” and the recommendation to “visit upgrademe.com.” Denyse O’Leary as well as other allies have pieces in the premier issue (autumn 2006), which is now out. The first issue focuses on the materialist reduction of soul.

Here is the archive for the NCSE webpage going back to 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.natcenscied.org. Let me know if you find anything interesting.

[This just in from a colleague in Kansas:] We are distributing the multicolored brochure titled “Frequently Asked Questions About the New Kansas Science Standards” and explaining the message in more detail: A genuine scientific controversy over evolution clearly exists — its historical character alone guarantees that evolution contains subjective and controversial “narratives” about what happened. However, institutions in positions of authority are denying it. “There is no controversy over evolution! — anyone who would deny it is a religious fool.” They are in a bind, because any substantive discussion of the core issues shows on its face the existence of controversies over what evolution means and how random mutation and natural selection can explain the history of life and macroevolution. Read More ›