Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Free Online Course: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Critics of modern evolutionary theory have an intellectual responsibility to strive to understand the paradigm that they are critiquing, preferably to a level where they can clearly articulate the key propositions of evolutionary theory and offer a standard defense of them.

Richard Hoppe, at the Panda’s Thumb blog, drew my attention to a free online course on the subject of genetics and evolution. You can, as I have done, sign up for (and read about) the course at this link.

The course description states,

“Introduction to Genetics and Evolution gives interested people a very basic overview of the principles behind these very fundamental areas of biology.  We often hear about new “genome sequences,” commercial kits that can tell you about your ancestry (including pre-human) from your DNA or disease predispositions, debates about the truth of evolution, and why animals behave the way they do.  This course provides the basic biology you need to understand all of these issues better and tries to clarify some misconceptions.  No prior coursework is assumed.”

Topics that will be covered in this course include:

  • Evidence for evolution
  • Introduction to basic genetics
  • Recombination and genetic mapping simple traits
  • Complications to genetic mapping
  • Genes vs. environment
  • Basic population genetics and Hardy-Weinberg
  • Gene flow, differentiation, inbreeding
  • Natural selection and genetic drift
  • Molecular evolution
  • Evolutionary applications and misapplications
  • Adaptive behaviors and species formation

Dr. Mohamed Noor, who obtained his PhD, I am told, under Jerry Coyne, will be the instructor of the course:

“Dr. Mohamed Noor is the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke University.  His expertise is in molecular evolution, and a large part of his research has been devoted to trying to understand the genetic changes that ultimately lead to the formation of new species. More recently, his research team has used fruit fly species to understand the causes and evolutionary consequences of variation in rates of genetic recombination/ exchange.

Dr. Noor has received several awards for research, teaching, and mentoring, and has been active in the scientific community, including serving as president of the American Genetic Association, chair of the NIH study section in Genetic Variation and Evolution, and editor of the journal Evolution.”

The course lasts 10 weeks and begins on October 10th. The description page also notes that “The class will consist of watching multiple lecture mini-videos which are roughly 10-15 minutes in length.  These contain 1-3 integrated quiz questions per video.  There will also be 3 test assessments, including a non-cumulative final exam.”

I particularly recommend that those among us who don’t have a strong biology background take this course. It is very important that we ID proponents make sure we have a robust grasp of what evolutionary theory is saying and why it says it, so that no one can say we haven’t given it a fair hearing. Go here to register!

Comments
How much time each should I plan to devote to this course?JoeCoder
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
I’m presuming that you’re not in any way suggesting that this has been brought about by RM+NS. Correct?
In agreement with Professor Behe, and others, I am suggesting that random mutation coupled to natural selection is perfectly capable of giving rise to new species.Genomicus
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Genomicus:
Therefore, the rise of a new species means the rise of a new form of biological complexity.
I'm presuming that you're not in any way suggesting that this has been brought about by RM+NS. Correct?PaV
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Genomicus:
Species are regarded as complex (e.g., we’d all agree that elephants are complex creatures). Therefore, the rise of a new species means the rise of a new form of biological complexity.
New species can have the same form as the parent species. So it would all depend on how one defines "a new species" and "speciation".Joe
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
“Yes. Quoting passages of a theological nature is relevant to biological origins in which way, again?”
I guess you can ask God, who is the source of all life, when you see Him when you die.
That's not a scientific statement, though, is it? I mean, if I were to quote passages of the Koran, or the Vedas, or the Iliad and the Odyssey, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence - wouldn't you consider all that irrelevant to biological origins? Sure, they're interesting but really have no place in discussion about science IMHO.Genomicus
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
What is it you have in mind when you say this?
Species are regarded as complex (e.g., we'd all agree that elephants are complex creatures). Therefore, the rise of a new species means the rise of a new form of biological complexity.Genomicus
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Joe Coder stated:
If I were a professor and had a student who walked into my class intending to inform me that my fundamental views on the subject of my professional training were in error, I can well imagine thinking the kid deserved a good smack. Unfair? Yes, but true. Overturning scientific theories is not the job of an undergraduate student. A student’s job is to learn what his teacher has to teach him, so that perhaps later when the student is intellectually ripened, he can lead or participate in a revolution. It’s not at all that you need a PhD to hold a dissenting view, but age, thought and experience count for a lot.
That's a agreeable 'play nice' long term strategy, but then again if you are, like me, a little like poor little Johnny (the butt of so many jokes) who is always raising his hand and asking questions and can't seem to keep from getting into trouble with the teacher in class, perhaps it would be good to have a little primer on where some of the major weaknesses of 'the overwhelming evidence for evolution' actually are?!!
Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution" - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html (Not) Making the Grade: Recent Textbooks & Their Treatment of Evolution (Icons of Evolution update) podcast and paper - October 2011 http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/10/not_making_the_grade_recent_te.html
As to natural selection:
On Enzymes and Teleology - Dr. Ann Gauger - July 19, 2012 Excerpt: "This is an interesting turn in evolutionary thinking. People have been saying for years, "Of course evolution isn't random, it's directed by natural selection. It's not chance, it's chance and necessity." But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it's the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/on_enzymes_and062391.html Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature Austin Hughes: Most Evolutionary Literature Showing Positive Selection in the Genome is "Worthless" - Casey Luskin - 2012 Excerpt - When University of South Carolina evolutionary biologist Austin Hughes was asked about the problem with positive Darwinian selection, he says, "The problem is there really isn't all that much evidence that it actually happens to the extent to which it would be needed to explain all of the adaptive traits of organisms." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/austin_hughes_m055121.html Darwinism’s Last Stand? - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand.html#more EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED I got a new copy of ReMine’s The Biotic Message and re-read his chapters on Natural Seleciton and I get to see it all in action. (UD Blogger - Mung) Summary Inventive natural selection is the distinctive evolutionary mechanism – essential to Darwinian theory. Evolutionists presume it creates new adaptations by somehow traversing the hills and valleys of the fitness terrain. But they do not attempt to defend it as testable science. Rather, for the defense they shift back to the naive version – survival of the fittest. Then they might offer some tautology to help expunge all doubt. When challenged, they shift between various formulations They use naive natural selection to convince the public that evolution is simple, testable, and virtually inevitable. When opponents point out that such continually uphill evolution is refuted by the data, evolutionists effortlessly shift away from naive natural selection. Then they charge that the opponent has a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. In short, evolutionists merely shifted away from criticism, then focused their arguments (and your attention) in a direction that seemed to overcome the criticism. This phenomenon occurs at several levels. Biological adaptation by natural selection is not inevitable, nor is the theory scientific. It had merely lent support to the philosophy of naturalism. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-defies-the-odds/comment-page-1/#comment-384066 "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University
bornagain77
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Genomicus:
Speciation can be considered an example of new biological complexity.
What is it you have in mind when you say this?PaV
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
boragain77- If we have natural selection then we have evolution by Darwinian processes. That said natural selection doesn't do anything, so there would still be major issues for evolutionism. But anyway the course looks interesting and I am trying to set aside some time to take it.Joe
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
footnote:
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP
bornagain77
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Genomicus @16: I understand what you are saying and I agree the terminology is important. I also agree that a Darwinian process can account for some of what we see in the world: average beak size fluctuations in a population of finches; insects and insecticide (possibly); the malaria/sickle-cell example Behe reviewed in his book; the antifreeze [broken] protein in that Antarctic fish species; a few more examples along those lines. Interesting stuff to be sure; but in the broader context, pretty minimal stuff. My expectation is that the course will provide a good primer on genetics and also some decent examples of these microevolutionary changes we see. I agree with PaV that caveat emptor is in order as to the broader concept of "evolution" and any attempts that may be made to indoctrinate the student, particularly in light of the professor's recommendation of Coyne's book. In terms of terminology, part of my interest will be to watch the use of the word "evolution" and see when it shifts and changes meaning throughout the course (I would like to be polite and say "if" but I've had enough experience to know that it is not "if" but "when"). Will be interesting to see . . .Eric Anderson
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
ba77 @7: Interesting video. Started off slowly, but he did a decent job providing a description for the lay person. Unfortunately he went off the rails a bit at about minute 22 when he started trying to identify the designer . . .Eric Anderson
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
That’s not the only kind of biological complexity. Speciation can be considered an example of new biological complexity. A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.htmlbornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
"Yes. Quoting passages of a theological nature is relevant to biological origins in which way, again?" I guess you can ask God, who is the source of all life, when you see Him when you die. As to, your theological concern, perhaps you could question Darwinists as to why they use predominantly theological arguments as a starting point, instead of reasoning to a theological end point as I did? The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/ Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html "One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks",,," Eric - UD Bloggerbornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Please fell free to cite just one novel functional protein arising by Darwinian processes.
(Note that I'm no Darwinian - I'm an ID proponent) That's not the only kind of biological complexity. Speciation can be considered an example of new biological complexity.Genomicus
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Well, establishing if evolution by Darwinian processes is even possible IS the first step to take in ascertaining if you are on the right path scientifically, but once the crucial point is established that Darwinian processes are not even in the right ballpark as to being realistically plausible, then the supposed (read contrived) evidence for common descent proffered by Darwinists quickly falls apart upon closer inspection!
And the evidence for common descent explained by ID proponents like Prof. Behe, true? My point is this: if you're going to say that there is no evidence for evolution, you have to define what you mean. If you mean "common descent," then a lot of us around here will strongly disagree with you. Just saying, you know.
Darwinian processes completely fail to explain the origin of functional information and you wonder why ‘The Word’ (Logos) of John1:1 would be relevant???
Yes. Quoting passages of a theological nature is relevant to biological origins in which way, again?Genomicus
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
I’m pretty sure all of us ID proponents would agree that Darwinian evolution can account for some of the biological complexity in our world.
Please fell free to cite just one novel functional protein arising by Darwinian processes.bornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Not all. any. difference
I'm pretty sure all of us ID proponents would agree that Darwinian evolution can account for some of the biological complexity in our world.Genomicus
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Then you’re not asking for evidence of common descent
Well, establishing if evolution by Darwinian processes is even possible IS the first step to take in ascertaining if you are on the right path scientifically, but once the crucial point is established that Darwinian processes are not even in the right ballpark as to being realistically plausible, then the supposed (read contrived) evidence for common descent proffered by Darwinists quickly falls apart upon closer inspection!
or (asking for) evidence for evolution for that matter.
Au Contraire, I asking specifically for any evidence of 'vertical' evolution, i.e. of gain in functional complexity above what is already present!
Verse and music: Not meaning to be annoying, but what exactly does this have to do with the subject of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution, and biological origins as a whole?
Darwinian processes completely fail to explain the origin of functional information and you wonder why 'The Word' (Logos) of John1:1 would be relevant???bornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Genomicus:
You’re specifically asking for evidence that Neo-Darwinian processes can generate all the biological complexity we see today.
Not all. any. differenceMung
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Evidence for evolution ‘in this context’? I don’t know, perhaps the same evidence I’ve been asking for for years?!? Perhaps, a single novel functional protein arrived at by purely neo-Darwianian processes??? or better yet a molecular machine arrived at by purely neo-Darwinian processes??? or perhaps best yet, a demonstration of the awesome power of evolution to create ‘layered transcription and overlapping coded programming’ within the genome that computer programmers can only dream of imitating?
Then you're not asking for evidence of common descent, or evidence for evolution for that matter. You're specifically asking for evidence that Neo-Darwinian processes can generate all the biological complexity we see today. I know it might seem like the semantics are unimportant, but we need to be careful to use the correct terms in the discussion over biological origins.
Verse and music:
Not meaning to be annoying, but what exactly does this have to do with the subject of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution, and biological origins as a whole?Genomicus
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Further note:
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933
Verse and music:
John 1:1-5 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Matt Maher - Hold Us Together (w. lyrics) -- music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0ENzQcjrM
bornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
So what do you mean by “evolution” in this context?
Evidence for evolution 'in this context'? I don't know, perhaps the same evidence I've been asking for for years?!? Perhaps, a single novel functional protein arrived at by purely neo-Darwianian processes??? or better yet a molecular machine arrived at by purely neo-Darwinian processes??? or perhaps best yet, a demonstration of the awesome power of evolution to create 'layered transcription and overlapping coded programming' within the genome that computer programmers can only dream of imitating? notes:
Signature In The Cell - Review Excerpt: Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8 Overlapping & Embedded Genes - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGnOQv76jcU Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010 The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html
bornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Finally Jonathan, after all your studies, you finally made it to the top-secret hideout where Darwinists keep all their overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution that they keep telling us IDiots about but never producing for us!
Evidence for common descent is not the same thing as evidence for the view that "everything" in biology is the result of non-teleological processes. So what do you mean by "evolution" in this context? That said, there is a trace of a refreshing change going on among ID proponents. Slowly but surely, it seems like mainstream ID proponents are willing to actually learn about the theory that is being critiqued, and willing to critique the arguments made by other ID proponents (e.g., Sal's criticism of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.).Genomicus
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Funny. One of the FAQ questions reads:
Does Prof. Mohamed Noor ALWAYS talk that fast? Yes.
I completed a small set of Google taught Python classes on youtube. If you can track this guys talking speed, Noor will be a a piece of cake: Google Python Class Day 2 Part 3 See if you can understand him on the first run. ;) If you are not familiar with any coding jargon you have a more difficult time. JGuyJGuy
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
PaV @4: No doubt you are correct. I notice he lists as part of the supplemental reading Coyne's Why Evolution Is True book. Looks like an interesting course, however, so with your caveat in place it might be worth checking out.Eric Anderson
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Semi OT: I think Ian Juby does a excellent job in the following video, with one of the more complex subjects in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, making the subject very accessible to the layman:
Thermodynamics & Information - Ian Juby - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dAA06Zfi4M
bornagain77
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
The evolution topics covered in the present course are largely confined to “microevolution,” though we hope to add some new topics spanning macroevolution to future course iterations.”
But macroevolution is just the result of repeated microevolution! Oh, wait! I thought creationists made up the micro/macro distinction.Mung
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Perhaps those considering the course should note the following "The present version does not cover macroevolution or the diversity of life. There will not be anything about dinosaurs. The evolution topics covered in the present course are largely confined to "microevolution," though we hope to add some new topics spanning macroevolution to future course iterations." No doubt it will be quite interesting, but that seems to ignore a major area of concern. Isn't the question whether evolutionary processes, such as they are, have the POWER to drive speciation? Wasn't that the core of Behe's "Edge of Evolution?" Somebody help me out. ThanksBruce Phillips
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
CAVEAT EMPTOR: There's nuts and bolts about biology; and, then, there's "evolution." That's the only part that concerns me. And what invariably you find, no matter what book you pick up, there is no way that they can use all the stuff they've told you about and then explain evolution to you. I've looked everywhere. Doesn't exist. So, if you want to learn "nuts and bolts" stuff, assuming you aren't already familiar, then this is a good class for you. But don't expect that in the end they will come up with an explanation for 'evolution' that even comes close to making any kind of sense. If you do, then you're just wasting your time.PaV
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply