There are three main approaches to current origin-of-life studies – metabolism-first, replication-first, and membrane-first. The problem with each of these approaches is that they ignore the reality of irreducible complexity in self-replicating system.
Read More ›
Diatom shells have been found in the Earth’s stratosphere at a height of 27 kilometers. Since there have not been any violent volcanic eruptions in the last three years, the presumption is that they came from space, and probably from inside a comet, according to Professor Milton Wainwright (University of Sheffield, England), who is the lead author of a new paper titled, Isolation of a Diatom Frustule Fragment From the Lower Stratosphere (22-27 km) – Evidence For A Cosmic Origin (Journal of Cosmology, 2013, Vol. 22, pp. 10183-10188). Here’s how the report’s Abstract summarizes the discovery: Sampling of the stratosphere at heights between 22 and 27 km was carried out in the UK on 31st July 2013 using balloon-borne equipment Read More ›
It’s gone viral–the one man a cappella production of “Bohemian Gravity”. It’s a good thing he included the lyrics, because otherwise you might not notice it is a parody of Queen. For most people who know of string theory, it’s a hoot. For the select few who actually understand string theory, it’s a riot. And for those of us who resent string theory, its somewhere between Sharknado and Oklahoma City. Yeah, I’m the guy you never want to take to a movie theater. But let me explain why I might be the only one who had high blood pressure after watching this video. Although I know a few of the terms from string theory, there’s a large contingent of physicists Read More ›
Evolutionists believe that mind can rise from matter. From atoms configured into molecules, configured into cells, configured into tissues, configured into a brain, mind can rise. Their molecules-to-man evolution story is in fact the narrative of the emergency of mind from matter. Here, in a sense, evolutionism and artificial intelligence (AI) meet in developing a fallacious more-from-less scenario. For example, an evolutionist says: I think that “larger objects” have properties not possessed by their parts. These properties include the capacity to have purposes, designs, moral principles, beauty, love, anger, and fear. According to this evolutionist naturalistic conception, a “larger object” is simply a specific configuration of atoms, enough large to develop the emergent properties. The belief that properties as those Read More ›
This just in from Phys.Org.
Pugh added that he and Venters were stunned to find 160,000 of these “initiation machines,” because humans only have about 30,000 genes. “This finding is even more remarkable, given that fewer than 10,000 of these machines actually were found right at the site of genes. Since most genes are turned off in cells, it is understandable why they are typically devoid of the initiation machinery.” . . .
The remaining 150,000 initiation machines—those Pugh and Venters did not find right at genes—remained somewhat mysterious.
These initiation machines that were not associated with genes were clearly active since they were making RNA and aligned with fragments of RNA discovered by other scientists,” Pugh said. “In the early days, these fragments of RNA were generally dismissed as irrelevant since they did not code for proteins.” [Yeah, that’s right—you called it “junk DNA” and said it was proof contradicting design.] . . . . .Pugh and Venters further validated their surprising findings by determining that these non-coding initiation machines recognized the same DNA sequences as the ones at coding genes, indicating that they have a specific origin and that their production is regulated, just like it is at coding genes. . . . . . .
“These non-coding RNAs have been called the ‘dark matter’ of the genome because, just like the dark matter of the universe, they are massive in terms of coverage—making up over 95 percent of the human genome. However, they are difficult to detect and no one knows exactly what they all are doing or why they are there,” Pugh said. “Now at least we know that they are real, and not just ‘noise’ or ‘junk.’ Of course, the next step is to answer the question, ‘what, in fact, do they do?'”[Really?!! “Dark Matter?” You called it “junk-DNA”; it’s only now, now that you’ve been proven wrong on a grand scale that you’ve decided to call it “dark matter.”][P.S. This is what liberals do: when wrong, change the words; e.g., “global warming” = “climate change”, or, “pro-abortion” = “pro-choice”. You see, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.]
Images of Neanderthal Man have changed over the years, but there has been a reluctance to portray them as our near-cousins. Neanderthals have been treated as a separate species within the Homo family, and usually described as slow and clumsy, with a limited capacity for creative thinking. The evolutionary context is typically presented in terms of Modern Man’s superiority, so that when Homo sapiens migrated from Africa into Europe, it was the Neanderthal population that died out. However, does the evolutionary approach provide the appropriate framework for understanding these events? Recent discoveries suggest that Neanderthals do not fit the descriptions found in the textbooks and the media, and that the evolutionary agenda is actually a negative influence. The presuppositions and Read More ›
After another unfortunately lengthy break, we’re at it again. This post is my latest response to Francis Smallwood. Francis is first and foremost, a dear friend, but also a Christian neo-Darwinist. He writes at his blog Musings of Science. This response is part of a long-term (hopefully lifelong), dialogue on many different topics relating to the theory of intelligent design and neo-Darwinism. We are both very excited about continuing this project. Francis’ previous response can be found here: http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-4/ Debating Darwin and Design A dialogue between two Christians 1. Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’? 12th September 2013 Joshua Gidney – Third Response One of the many benefits of taking part in a written dialogue, like Read More ›
There has been much hullabaloo lately regarding a new paper published by a team of researchers, led by Associate Professor Michael Lee of the University of Adelaide, claiming that the abrupt appearance of dozens of animal groups in the early Cambrian period is no great mystery: rates of both morphological and genetic evolution were five times faster than today, that’s all. According to the paper, these rates “are still consistent with evolution by natural selection…, potentially resolving ‘Darwin’s dilemma.’” Are they right? The authors of the paper, Michael Lee, Julien Soubrier and Gregory Edgecombe, attempted to measure the rate of evolution at two levels: the phenotypic level (which mostly relates to changes in an organism’s form and structure) and the Read More ›