Origin Of Life

In Illustra Media’s Darwin’s Dilemma, there is a clip on proteins as islands of function in amino acid sequence space: [youtube h38Xi-Jz9yk] Food for thought. As a stimulus to such, let us next note how the bloggist Wintery Knight has given an interesting summary of the challenges involved if a chance-dominated process is invoked for a hypothetical 100-AA polypeptide: Let’s calculate the odds of building a protein composed of a functional chain of 100 amino acids, by chance. (Think of a meaningful English sentence built with 100 scrabble letters, held together with glue) Sub-problems: BONDING: You need 99 peptide bonds between the 100 amino acids. The odds of getting a peptide bond is 50%. The probability of building a chain Read More ›

Newbie commenter Andre, in an exchange with Mr Matzke, asks some interesting questions concerning DNA. First, let us remind ourselves of what we are discussing, courtesy NIH: Next, Andre’s comment: DNA has the following; 1. Functional Information 2. Encoder 3. Error correction [4]. Decoder . . . can you please show me in a step by step fashion how such a system could randomly without any intelligence, and totally unguided build itself? Where did the functional information come from? What was first the encoder? The decoder? Error correction? Functional information? This is an irreducibly complex system any part removed and the system fails to function. Can you prove otherwise . . . ? It would be interesting to see the Read More ›

Here, HT WK: [youtube NbluTDb1Nfs] Take an hour and a half to learn what ID is about (yes, what it is really about [and cf. here at UD for correctives to common strawman distortions . . . ]), with particular focus on the origin of cell based life [OoL], through watching a public presentation in the UK from a leading ID thinker, Stephen Meyer. Notice the distinction he underscores relative to the common demonising rhetorical projection of “Right-wing Fundamentalist theocratic agendas” etc. I clip from the video: Let me also draw in the design inference explanatory filter considered on a per aspect basis, as was presented in the very first post in the ID Foundations series: (NB: Observe Meyer here, Read More ›

(Prev. : No 16 F/N: 17a, here) *NB: For those new to UD, FSCO/I means: Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or associated Information From time to time, we need to refocus our attention on foundational issues relating to the positive case for inferring design as best explanation for certain phenomena connected to origins of the cosmos, life and body plans. It is therefore worth the while to excerpt an addition I just made to the IOSE Introduction and Summary page, HT CR, by way of an excerpt from Meyer’s reply to Falk’s hostile review of Signature in the Cell. In addition, given all too commonly seen basic problems with first principles of right reasoning among objectors to design theory [–> cf. Read More ›

I need a picture of a small, hot-blooded mammal taunting an irritable dinosaur. An animation would be even better: the dinosaur would have a tic which makes him roar ‘IDiot’ constantly. Maybe make that several small mammals, becoming dozens and then hundreds. Singing something witty to the hamster dance. Or maybe not that last bit. Larry Moran has sort-of replied to my previous blogpost but disappoints with only one substantive point. And even that one point is wrong: ID is not committed to the idea that individual genomes be well-designed; that is just an expectation some of us derive based on belief in a designer which is established on other evidence. ID would still be true if only globular proteins Read More ›

First, by “Darwinistic” I mean “atheistic-materialist neo-Darwinist”, which includes the view that even the origin of life can be explained by reference to chance and natural law. As Alan Fox points out, many of those here are “laymen” when it comes to evolutionary biology.  Most of us are not specifically schooled or trained in that arena – by “us”, I mean anyone who is interested in the debate about Darwinian evolution vs ID-inclusive evolution.  I, like many, have informed myself to a moderate degree about Darwinistic claims and the ID argument, but I’m certainly not a professional scientist, nor a philosopher with any formal academic training. IMO, a reasonable layman would be highly skeptical of claims that matter, chance & Read More ›

One of the great things about UD is the commenters. In this case Eric Anderson has put up a summary — some days back — on an aspect of the blind- chance- and/or- necessity- in- a- chemical- stew- in- a- pond (or the like) OOL challenges that is well worth headlining: ___________ >> biological structures are not simply an aggregation of smaller units that naturally come about through the processes of physics and chemistry. We first need to clarify which building blocks we are talking about. If we are just talking about chemical elements (atoms with their constituent protons, electrons, neutrons) then, yes, everyone agrees that those exist naturally. In addition, if we are talking about some simple molecules, yes, some Read More ›

This morning, I ran across a news item on the “undiscovery” of Sandy Island off Australia: Most explorers dream of discovering uncharted territory, but a team of Australian scientists have done the exact opposite. They have found an island that doesn’t exist. (vid at the linked) This led me to think about the institution of an award for exposing scientific fraud and a NewScientist interview with Shi-min Fang, its first recipient: What prompted you to start challenging dubious pseudoscientific claims in China? In 1998, after eight years studying in the US, I returned to China and was shocked to see it was deluged with pseudosciences, superstitions and scientific misconduct. . . . (This one is disturbing, NS even speaks of Read More ›

On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad. As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no. Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside: Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument. This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog. Zachriel’s response reminds me, all too strikingly, of the cogency of  what Philip Johnson had to say in reply to Lewontin’s claims in his Read More ›

Gallup has updated their origins survey:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

They found:

since 1982 . . .
the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period — and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).

See: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins Read More ›

Sal C has begun a series of UD posts on entropy, thermodynamics and info challenges. I have thought it important to highlight the macro-micro info gap issues underscored by Jaynes et al, and to raise the issue of spontaneously moving from Darwin’s Pond-state to cell-state (whether in increments or not does not materially affect the point) without intelligently directed organising work. This sets the context for the design inference on OOL, in light of the significance of our broad base of experience on the source of FSCO/I: Materials + Energy sources + IDOW –> FSCO/I Where FSCO/I is evident from functional specificity and complexity of organised entities. Such may also directly store information in physical data structures such as control Read More ›