Craig Venter denies common descent — Dawkins incredulous

_{William Dembski

March 10, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Interesting story at Evolution News & Views about an exchange between Craig Venter (of human genome fame) and Richard Dawkins (of neo-atheist fame). Venter denies common descent, Dawkins can’t believe that he would even question it. For the exchange, which also includes Paul Davies, go here (start at the 9 minute mark). Origin-of-life researchers such as Ford Doolittle and Carl Woese have questioned for some time whether there even is a tree of life. Venter is now following in their train.

What’s significant is not so much whether Venter is right (I think he is), but what his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy suggests about the disarray in the study of biological origins. If common descent is up for grabs, what isn’t? Imagine physics in the century after Newton questioning whether there even is such a force as gravity or suggesting that really it decomposes into several different types of gravitational forces.

Venter’s flight from orthodoxy is even more drastic. Common descent is the sanctum sanctorum of evolutionary biology. If scientists of Venter’s stature are now desecrating it, what’s next?

Comments

Semi-OT; This video is very good for giving a basic outline for what is happening inside the cell; The Cell - A Guided Tour - Molecular Machines - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6087260/bornagain77_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

@Collin, He's definitely atheist. Saw his special on (I wanna say) Fox(?). He was asked directly whether he believed in God, to which he said no. Curiously, the special said he named his dog Darwin, so I thought he was dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist. Maybe he's rationalized it away? - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Let's think about his as Darwinists do (and materialist, and atheists, etc.): "Oh, look, LIFE emerged in a variety of ways. The kind that led to us is just one kind among many. See how easy it is for some kind of life to begin? It must be everywhere in the universe!" This is how they will ultimately present what Venter is currently discovering. In the meantime, they will deny it and challenge it. Just like with "junk-DNA". "We never called it 'junk-DNA'!" And they say this with 'straight faces'!PaV_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Wikipedia seems to say he is an atheist. If he does not believe in design or creation in some way, then he must believe in life spontaneously appearing multiple times.Collin_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Of interest to O'Leary at 2, It is interesting to note the extreme difficulty that has been involved in actually proving gravity is mediated at the speed of light as held by General Relativity;,,, Excerpt: While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. (In the discussion above, this damping represents a failure of the "retardation" and "non-central, velocity-dependent" effects to completely cancel.) The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite. If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.) Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test. http://www.sciforums.com/How-do-you-calculate-the-speed-of-gravity-t-7416.htmlbornagain77_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

I agree with what the Darwinists USE to say regarding universal common ancestry and the tree of life theory. They USE to say that its validation rested squarely on the fossil record. For me personally if all the fossils are there- and they properly correlate with geological time as it is best understood- then universal common ancestry is a fine deduction or inference. However, if the fossil record does not show what one would expect from the tree of life theory, then we NEED to reconsider and question it altogether. Incidentally, I found it very interesting that Richard Dawkins most recent book The Greatest No Show On Earth, was exactly that when it came to the evidence from the fossil record. Dawkins claims that the best evidence for universal common ancestry (which he improperly conflates with evolution in general) is the evidence from genetic similarity among species. But as we all know homology and genetic similarity can just as easy be inferred as the product or result of common DESIGN as it can of common ancestry. I am willing to let the fossils speak about the true nature of geological and paleontological history for themselves. It should noted though that even is universal common ancestry is true, that by itself does not in any way necessarily rule out intelligent design. The likelihood of human beings evolving from a one celled organism via only natural laws and pure chance is still a totally unintelligent explanation for the mechanism of how complex life came to be. Such is Darwinism. What people really should be shocked about it not someone digressing from the usual tree of life view of evolutionary history but instead the notion that the full explanation of how complex life came to be can be reduced to dumb luck and simple redundant laws of physics and chemistry.Frost122585_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Bill Dembski writes "Imagine physics in the century after Newton questioning whether there even is such a force as gravity or suggesting that really it decomposes into several different types of gravitational forces." Actually, for a very interesting reason, many did question Newton's Laws: The laws implied action at a distance, and any good unidirectional skeptic from the Skeptics Society can tell you it doesn't happen. Newton's only response, I gather, was "hypotheses non fingo" - Latin for, roughly, "I am a mathematician; I write equations; I don't invent hypotheses". What saved Newton's Laws from strangulation by orthodoxy was that they became irreplaceable in so many fields that finally people said, "I don't care if it's not orthodox. Get out of my way, will you? I need to calculate some gravitational effects ..." I wrote a children's book on the Laws of Motion recently. It was a most interesting controversy, and perhaps relevant to some controversies today. As I write this, it is #19 on Amazon Canada in children's books on physics.O'Leary_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

I find it extremely judicial for Dawkins to supply his own rope for the hanging of Darwinism when he states:
The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster. (2009, p. 409-10)
ENV goes on to cite the fact that there are 23 known variants of the Genetic Code that would be 'disastrous', to use Dawkins rope. :)bornagain77_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply