Evolution

Check out Davison’s new anti-Darwinian blog: http://prescribedevolution.blogspot.com.

According to George V. Coyne: “In the third paragraph of his op ed article in the NY Times, 7 July 2005, Card. Schoenborn mistakenly defines neo-Darwinian evolution as ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection’ and then condemns it. If you arbitrarily define something in a condemning way and then condemn it, you make dialogue pretty difficult.” [From circulated email.] In neo-Darwinism, the raw material for innovation derives from changes in genetic material. According to the theory, those changes are NOT correlated with future benefit. Hence they are random, unguided, unplanned. Likewise, natural selection has no plan — it does not anticipate future functions that are not currently available. It can only take advantage of present function. Read More ›

Comment #2 is the winning entry. It’s the closest to what I was looking for, though it’s still a long way from the indirect Darwinian pathways that supposedly led to the highly integrated molecular machines of the sort described by Michael Behe. Most of the entries focused on evolving a structure to improve a given function. The point of this exercise, however, was to document evolutionary pathways in which functions and structures change over time. I awarded the winning entry $150.

Biological evolution is supposed to describe a gradual process that can produce marvelous adapations from simple precursors (e.g., the mammalian eye from a light-sensitive spot). But what about technological evolution? In the history of human technology, what is the longest chain of gradual changes that transforms one system into another. Read More ›

KU withdraws intelligent design course Thursday, December 1, 2005 . . . “It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.” . . . MORE

Watch this 11 minute PBS interview with Dr Stephen C. Meyer explaining Intelligent Design Theory: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=545 Watch this 2 minute BBC interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins explaining Darwin’s Theory: http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpg

Here’s a report from a colleague on Ken Miller’s talk yesterday evening at Sacred Heart University (“Intelligent Design and the Battle for America’s Schools: Why Darwin Still Matters” — go here for the press release):

Earlier tonight I attended a presentation by Ken Miller at Sacred Heart University. It appears he got a pretty good turnout. I could only attend for about 45 min and I didn’t take any notes. Here are a few quick thoughts about the style and substance of his talk.

As far as style goes, Miller gave a good and entertaining presentation. It was very professional, slick, and colorful; he makes very effective use of various technological and visual aides; at times he was even funny. Indeed, on several occasions he had the audience cracking up. The only annoying part of his talk, in terms of style (more on substance momentarily), was his continual bragging about his credentials, how many books he has written, his qualifications, etc. I’ve never seen so many pictures and slides of the presenter! Overall I’d have to say he put on a darn good show. Read More ›

[Updated links 30nov05:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/13286369.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Creationism_Class.html]

[From a colleague:] The University of Kansas is flexing its anti-religion muscle again, this time by announcing the introduction of a new course in the Religion department: “Creationism, Intelligent Design and Other Religious Mythologies.”

To be taught by a professor of religion, no scientists allowed. God forbid that the students would hear both sides of a controversy presented in their strongest terms by experts.

When protestations arise from those who sense a somewhat disengenuous linking of ID (or creationism) with Mythology, the Provost self-righteously says, “The course title is not meant to offend any religion or belief, KU Provost David Shulenburger said Tuesday. He explained in a written statement that “myth” and “mythology” are common in the academic study of religion.” Read More ›

In September, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show devoted several programs to the topic of evolution (“Evolution, Schmevolution — Who’s Right, Who’s Full of It”). What’s more, I appeared on one of those programs (go here and here). In those programs, Stewart & Co. had some lines that were not only funny but also memorable. The one that sticks out poked fun at ID: “We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.” That line is now being reused on the debate circuit, with Eugenie Scott, for instance, deploying it this November at a debate at Boston University (go here). Although the line is funny, it is not accurate. God’s skill-set includes not just ordering matter Read More ›

[From a colleague:] There’s an interesting article in the American Scientist from last year that is worth revisiting. It examines whether the genetic code is optimized for reducing the impact of point mutations. Apparently it is according to the author. Given that there are exponentially large numbers of potential codon usages, if the genetic code really is the product of arbitrary events, anti-ID scientist face a serious problem, namely, how is it that this “frozen accident” just happens to be the best code for minimizing point mutations. Favorite quote from the article: “It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to Read More ›

Ask yourself, Why do biological systems exhibit molecular machines at the smallest level permissible by the properties of matter? “Evolution” provides less and less a convincing answer.

Molecular motors
9 November 2005

http://www.iop.org/EJ/news/-topic=1009

A new special issue of Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter edited by Joseph Klafter and Michael Urbakh contains invited papers from some of the world’s greatest experts on molecular motors.

Macro-scale thermodynamic engines convert the random motion of fuel-produced heat into directed motion. Such engines cannot be downsized to the nanometre scale, because thermodynamics does not apply to single atoms or molecules, only large assemblies of them. A great challenge for the field of nanotechnology is the design and construction of microscopic motors that can transform input energy into directed motion and perform useful functions such as transporting of cargo. Today’s nanotechnologists can only look in envy at the biological world, where molecular motors of various kinds (linear, rotary) are very common and fulfil essential roles. Read More ›

I’ve reported on this blog about the current president of Cornell, Hunter Rawlings, and his recent diatribe against ID (search under “Rawlings” on this blog). Interestingly, the past president of Cornell, Frank Rhodes was very much in the same mold. I heard him speak at a C. S. Lewis Foundation event at Cambridge in 1994 (“Cosmos and Creation: Chance or Dance”). Rhodes is a classic theistic evolutionist, whose theism means absolutely nothing with regard to this scientific understanding of biological evolution. To see this, check out the following note by him, which is now twenty years old: go here. Given the power of Darwinism to delude otherwise worthy intellects, it is unsurprising that even a world renowned scholar at the Read More ›

Let me say very clearly here that I’m not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence. http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des_1.html

The power of evolution to bring about remarkable biological designs never ceases to amaze me. Scratch that. The power of evolution to delude its followers into thinking it can bring about remarkable biological designs never ceases to amaze me. That’s better.

Butterfly’s Navigation Secret Revealed in Flight Simulator
By LiveScience Staff
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050504_butterfly_navigation.html

The monarch butterfly is known to use the angle of sunlight as a navigational guide on its annual fall migration from across North America to Mexico. But how it processes the information has been a mystery.

Now scientists have used a flight simulator and peeked inside the butterfly brain to learn that their light-detecting sensors are hard-wired to their circadian clocks, allowing the creatures to compensate for the time of day. Read More ›

The Darwin exhibition frightening off corporate sponsors By Nicholas Wapshott in New York (Filed: 20/11/2005) An exhibition celebrating the life of Charles Darwin has failed to find a corporate sponsor because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution. The entire $3 million (£1.7 million) cost of Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York yesterday, is instead being borne by wealthy individuals and private charitable donations. MORE