Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

The Darwinian Basis of the Prokaryote-to-Eukaryote Transition Collapses

The question of the evolution of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic ones has long been a topic of heated discussion in the scientific literature. It is generally thought that eukaryotes arose by some prokaryotic cells being engulfed and assimilated by other prokaryotic cells. Called endosymbiotic theory, there is some empirical basis for this. For example, mitochondria contain a single circular genome, carry out transcription and translation within its compartment, use bacteria-like enzymes/components, and replicate independently of host cell division and in a manner akin to bacterial binary fission. Despite such evidence, however, when assessing the causal sufficiency of unguided processes, they — predictably — come up short. After all, it is all-too-easy to lapse into a long-discredited Lamarckian “inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics” mentality. It Read More ›

How the Eukaryote Got its Mitochondria

If someone tossed an important part onto their car’s engine, and slammed down the hood, you wouldn’t expect it to work. And if it did work you’d be suspicious. The claim is either absurd or rigged.  Read more

Tropical rainforests and Climate Change

One only has to visit a tropical rainforest to discover a world filled with abundant treasures. It is entirely natural for people to want to protect these regions from any threat. Climate change has been perceived as a threat: cooler climates do not support tropical ecozones – but what about warmer climates? Concerns have been raised about plants being unable to adapt to the heat, and there are potential dangers of rainfall reductions. Geological research has revealed a remarkable period of Earth history at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary, a very warm period known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Although this has been much studied, little is known of the way the tropics responded to high temperatures globally (temperatures rose by Read More ›

Insects Compute Optimal Flight Plans

Anyone who travels much by air knows that pilots try to ride the wind. Flights may even deviate substantially from the shortest-distance route if the wind is strong enough elsewhere. But of course the wind is not likely moving exactly toward your destination. Add to this the fact that the wind also varies with altitude, and the problem of designing the optimal route of flight becomes highly complex. It is a problem in the calculus of variations (optimizing functionals rather than mere functions) and is analogous to the optics problem of predicting the path of light through a medium with variant refractive index. But this approach requires analytical wind fields, described with functions, rather than numerically derived winds described, for Read More ›

Lee Spetner responds to Tom Schneider

Lee Spetner, author of NOT BY CHANCE (a critique of neo-Darwinism), asked me to post this response to Tom Schneider: I just became aware of Tom Schneider’s “response” to my objection to his criticism of my calculation of probability (go here for Schneider). I don’t know whether he can’t read or if he has a mental block against admitting to criticism. He thinks that my probability p = 1/300,000 is the probability of an adaptive mutation. I clearly stated that it is the probability that a particular mutation will occur in a population and will survive to take over that population.”  He did not understand this clear statement and thought that I meant it to be the probability of a particular Read More ›

Angiosperm diversity not explained by Darwinism

A key concept for Darwinism is adaptation. Traits are identified that confer survival and reproduction advantages to an organism. These traits are supposed to experience selection pressures that drive adaptive change and speciation. Consequently, traits are of central importance for theories of evoplutionary transformation, as is also time. However, when contemplating the flowering plants, even Darwin found them difficult to reconcile with his theory. Writing to J.D. Hooker in 1879, he described the evolutionary success of angiosperms as “an abominable mystery“. He was troubled by the abrupt origin and extraordinarily rapid diversification of flowering plants in the mid-Cretaceous. “The answer to whether any of the above traits are consistent predictors of diversity of a given rate of lineage growth depends Read More ›

Hawking’s Grand Design – but is it science?

Stephen Hawking has achieved the status of ‘celebrity scientist’. He writes books that sell well and has both presented and performed in television series. His latest book, The Grand Design, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, has been reviewed widely by both popular press and scientific journals. According to Michael Turner, who wrote the Nature review, these authors: “offer a brief but thrilling account of some of the boldest ideas in physics – including M-theory and the multiverse – and what these have to say about our existence and the nature of the Universe.” For more, go here. Blog conclusion: Paradoxically, scientific realism has been used to promote atheism against theism, but Hawking is now leading his band of atheists towards a Read More ›

Did Horizontal Gene Transfer Create Evolution?

It is common knowledge that evolution is supposed to be caused by random biological variation that helps with reproductive success. By definition such biological variation is more likely to be passed on to later generations and eventually to become established in a population. And, according to the theory, if such variation accumulates it leads to all kinds of biological novelties. One problem, however, is that biological variation is not for free. It arises as a consequence of sophisticated molecular machinery and this forces evolutionary theory to violate science’s dictum of simplicity. Scientific explanations should not consist of a series of coincidences and lucky strikes. In Darwin’s day the knowledge of biology was sufficiently rudimentary that this free lunch problem could Read More ›

Abusing Science

When confronted with their own religious doctrine, evolutionists are quick to deny any such thing. Evolution is based on religious claims, but after making these claims evolutionists insist their religious beliefs are entirely gratuitous. Their religious claims, evolutionists explain, are merely criticisms of design and creation. After all, we need to explain to the creationists why their ideas are not scientifically supported. The fact of evolution, on the other hand, is simply a scientific conclusion. But this evolutionary rendition is, as usual, at odds with the facts.  Read more

“Darwinism”

I am not satisfied with our definition of “Darwinism” in the glossary over to the right of our home page. The definition is, I think, accurate as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and somewhat vague. In this thread I invite friend and foe alike to provide a brief definition of “Darwinism.” The best entry or a synthesis of the best entries will obtain pride of place as permanent fixture in the UD glossary. Thank you.

Uh Oh! Is He Going To Get Gould-ed?

The word “borked” has entered our lexicon as a result of the treatment Judge Robert Bork received during Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. To put it mildly, he was not treated very well. When Stephen J. Gould came out with his theory of Punctuated Equilibria, he, too, was not treated well by the Darwinian establishment until such time as he made clear that his theory was firmly a part of Darwinian thought. Now another geologist, Michael Rampino, has just set himself up for equal treatment. In a PhysOrg entry, Rampino points out what has been so obvious for so long a time: evolution is NOT gradual! It is episodic. He also seeks to go further back Read More ›

Back to School Part 7

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here, (5) misrepresenting the molecular evidence here, (6) presenting Read More ›

Educated Incapacity

On another forum, a colleague used this term to describe the phenomenon I illucidated in the final sentence of my post there. (I’ve reproduced the content of that post below as a blockquote.) My comment was in reference to the widely circulated article, Naked Chimp Reminds Us of Ourselves. The article begins with: “It’s been said that humans are just naked apes. And if you don’t think that’s true, just take a look at Guru, a hairless 20-year-old chimpanzee…” Humans are much more than naked apes. Let me count the ways (with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning): Agriculture, houses, indoor plumbing, books, symphonies, cars, airplanes, philosophy, churches, hospitals, high-blood-pressure medication, nuclear reactors, magnetic resonance imaging, rockets, parachutes, supersonic aircraft, computer Read More ›

Why a Multiverse proponent should be open to Young-Earth Creationism and skeptical of Man-made Global Warming

The photo you’re looking at is a color-composite image of the Helix nebula, also known as the “Eye of God.” I’m sure many skeptics must be thinking that the title of my post was intended as some kind of joke. But I’m perfectly serious. Think I couldn’t possibly be right? Read on!

Young-Earth Creationism

Recently someone sent me a copy of an interesting article by two creationist scientists (Vardiman, L. and D. R. Humphreys. 2010. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1. Acts & Facts. 39 (11): 12-15). Dr. Vardiman is Senior Research Scientist, Astro/Geophysics, at the Institute for Creation Research, and Dr. Humphreys is a Retired Associate Professor of Physics. The two scientists claim to have developed a model which explains how stars can be seen many millions of light years away, even if only a few thousand years have passed since they were created.

Well, it’s an interesting little article, and although I’m extremely skeptical of the claim made by the authors, I look forward to reading the sequel. Not being a scientist, I’m in no position to critique the physics in the article. Even if it is correct, however, young-earth creationists still need to address other problems, such as The top five challenges for creationist geology, highlighted by Paul Garner, a very fair-minded creationist researcher, Fellow of the Geological Society and author of The New Creationism.

As I was reading the article, however, I was struck by an intriguing thought. Read More ›