Larry Moran wants Royal Society evo meeting cancelled!

_{News
July 4, 2016

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Evolution}

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

At his blog Sandwalk, one of our favourite commenters, Larry Moran, who has wracked up a ton of loyalty points in terms of free ID literature, points out that various people have made a mistake in writing to Suzan Mazur, author of Paradigm Shifters, complaining about the Royal Society’s go-slow on the new reno (Darwin replacement).

It looks to me like the organizers of this meeting didn’t think very carefully about the can of worms they were opening. When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble. When you try to lecture Suzan Mazur about paradigm shifting you are bound to regret it.

I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting. More.

I (O’Leary for News ) am beginning to think that this meeting will happen with or without the Royal Society but that it will be better for the Royal Society to host it.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Institutions get old and die. Is the Royal Society one of them?

See also: Royal Society says quit talking paradigm change Because they are in the midst of one. Hey, I just write the news around here, but all I ever say in these cases is, if nothing happened, why are all the Emergency Services here? Keep talking. Just keep talking. Distract yourself.

Larry Moran gets Suzan Mazur wrong (” When journalists who publish in key venues become interested in an otherwise obscure train wreck, we can reasonably suspect that a shift is taking place. That’ why we call it “news” and not “olds.””)

and

What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

rvb8: "Larry is understandibly angry at the unprofessional journalism on display, and rather than say the reporting was indeed distorted ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:) tries to bluster it out." ___________________________________ From my experience of having many letters published in a leading Catholic national newspaper, the editor has used short eye catching headings. Many times I have thought, but that is not what I would have said, but reading further, the actual point is made clear. News has quoted in full what professor L Moran has actually said verbatim. Journalistic licence used for eye catching headlines no doubt in order to provoke debate. Mission accomplished. No apologies needed.mw_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

This is amazing! When do you suppose ID will have their first 'Royal Society' like meet(ing)? Larry is understandibly angry at the unprofessional journalism on display, and rather than say the reporting was indeed distorted 'Denyse for News'(Heh:) tries to bluster it out. One day I will read here a piece of genuine, original science, but I'm not holding my breath. I fear it will be the continued endless BA tracts, and 'NEWS-Mazur' conspiracy accusations.rvb8_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Origenes and johnnyb Some folks here seem to have difficulties to admitting their mistakes.Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Origenes and johnnyb I think one interlocutor here doesn't know the definition of the word "urge" that was used by johnnyb in his suggested title for the OP. Here's the definition in Merriam Webster dictionary. Simple Definition of urge 1 : to ask people to do or support (something) in a way that shows that you believe it is very important 2 : to try to persuade (someone) in a serious way to do something 3 : to use force or pressure to move (someone or something) in a particular direction or at a particular speedDionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Origenes @58 Exactly, the OP was titled based on the information available up to the moment News wrote it. The attempt to do some damage control by Prof. LM does not necessarily imply that News must change the OP. That's what the thread is for. But still where is the text written by Prof.LM where he urges The Royal Society to host the meeting, as johnnyb wrote in his suggested variant for the OP title? That's why @53 indicated that velikovskys @46 seems incorrect or inaccurate. velikovskys does not seem ready to admit it though. Oh well, what else is new?Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Far more than just mutations and natural selection is required to make new body forms. As Stephen Meyer pointed out: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2358-principal-meanings-of-evolution-in-biology-textbooks What is not fact: 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms. Following is required: Various codes in the cell http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2213-the-various-codes-in-the-cell - coding genetic information - a part of introns (non-coding ) - Splicing Codes - Metabolic Code - Signal Transduction Codes - Signal Integration Codes - Histone Code - Tubulin Code - Sugar Code - Glycomic Code Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from (a) membrane targets and patterns (b) cytoskeletal arrays (c) centrosomes (d) ion channels, and (e) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code) (f) Gene regulatory networksOtangelo Grasso_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Origenes: So you hold that News should have based the OP title on what Larry Moran said in this thread, rather than what he said at his blog? IOWs you expect News to have the psychic ability to see events in the future? She does seem to indicate she has the psychic ability to know what is in his heart of hearts but no I don't have that ability myself. Velikovskys "Gee news ,he told you what he meant, you assumed wrong,it happens, fix it. Why insult someone because you misunderstood or are you making another claim now?" No need for time travel.velikovskys_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Velikovskys, So you hold that News should have based the OP title on what Larry Moran said in this thread, rather than what he said at his blog? IOWs you expect News to have the psychic ability to see events in the future?Origenes_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: Are you sure johnnyb’s suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM’s comments? lets see" (Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?”) Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay. I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights. So yes, it sounds like if his opinion mattered he could be said to be urging the sponsor not to cancel since he would miss an opportunity to mix it up,biologywise. LM:However, I do think the Royal Society is going to regret its decision to host the meeting. This is not a group that enjoys negative publicity and there’s going to be a lot of negative publicity. Since the headline does not specify who the cancellation was "the best option" for, it seems to fall broadly within the truth You may want to try again and read it carefully. Take your time, there’s no rush Thanks for your patience , I hate when there is a time limit for my response.velikovskys_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Larry, old chuff, I call myself News around here because we have a special tilt that puts "News" posts in a special section. Somebody's idea a long time ago. Don't really care. It's almost always me. You said: If I said, the doctor thinks that there’s no way to fix something except by doing “y” would you then say “Larry Moran wants to do ‘y’?” Yes, if you were a POA and cared about the person, I'd kind of assume that. Yes, I would. In your heart of hearts, would you be sorry if the meet were cancelled? Wouldn't it be kind of a thrill for you to wield such power? You used to have that power.News_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Denyse O'Leary says, Larry Moran at 44: “The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting.” Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant? I would assume she wants to do "y." If I said, the doctor thinks that there's no way to fix something except by doing "y" would you then say "Larry Moran wants to do 'y'?" Grow up Denyse ... and use your real name instead of hiding behind "News." I've told you that I don't want the meeting to be cancelled because I'd love to get into a fight with some of those kooks. I've told you that the Royal Society may not feel the same way about the meeting. Apologize for lying about me in the title.Larry Moran_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Why don't we all see if it happens or not, and then book tickets? I want the scones and the Union Jack lapel flag.News_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

velikovskys @46
A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.
true? Are you serious? Are you sure johnnyb's suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM's comments? You may want to try again and read it carefully. Take your time, there's no rush. :)Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

news: velikovskys at 50, if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled. Or else that it should go ahead as a flop. (?!) No we have no need to assume anything, he told you he doesn't want to cancel it. Perhaps he assumes it will flop but is wise enough to realize his assumption is could possibly be wrong. If his assumption proves to be wrong he should admit it. Don't you agree? Sorry for the distractionvelikovskys_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

velikovskys at 50, if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled. Or else that it should go ahead as a flop. (?!) This reminds me of a movie star spat: Star A: You must have been drunk when you said that. Star B: How dare you suggest I was drunk! Star A: Madam! I would not dare presume that you would make such a fool of yourself if you were sober! Now please, let's all get back to work. I plan to.News_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

news, Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant? Or did you want it both ways? Gee news ,he told you what he meant, you assumed wrong,it happens, fix it. Why insult someone because you misunderstood or are you making another claim now?velikovskys_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran at 44: "The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting." Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant? Or did you want it both ways? If I get there, save me a cider.News_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

As far as Junk DNA is concerned, I am quite willing to admit that "Evolution" is a good theory about how to make junk DNA. I, m personally looking for a theory of how to make specified complex stuff.Anaxagoras_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

johnnyb @45 This OP quoted professor LM: "I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting." But your suggested variant for the title is: “Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway” Does he really urge it?Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

johnnyb but I’m trying to figure out what an appropriate headline would be. Perhaps, “Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?" A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.velikovskys_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

I'm trying to square your position of wanting the meeting to go forward with your position of thinking that the meeting will necessarily have a bad end. I'm not News, but I'm trying to figure out what an appropriate headline would be. Perhaps, "Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway"?johnnyb_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

@Denyse O'Leary Are you going to apologize for lying about my wishes in the title of this post? I DO NOT WANT the meeting to be cancelled. I never said I wanted the meeting to be cancelled.Larry Moran_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Athur Hunt:
Seriously, PaV, whatever you are trying to say, it seems to have no connection with anything we know about what RNA and how it works in the cell. Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution.
Arthur, what you write here makes it abundantly clear that you have completely misunderstood the import of what I stated. Shouldn't the starting point, then, be one of asking me what I meant by the statement you're reacting to before you react?
This attempt to explain RNA biochemistry is painful. It ignores all we know about RNA structure and function, and about the numbers and composition of what are being called here “RNA genes”.
There were three parts to my reply. The first part had to do with Larry Moran's negative take regarding the author of the press release. The second part had to do with the results that were actually being presented in the press release. And the third part addressed the issue of so-called "RNA genes." The first is not at issue. The third has to do simply with the use of the term "gene" for transcripted, but untranslated RNA. It is a confusing term, and should not be used. Find a new term, or else be guilty of charges of obfuscation. Now, finally, the second part. I was addressing the argument that Larry, and likely you, too, Arthur, are going to make. That is, that the method the authors employ isolates stretches of RNA that only slightly bind to one another. IOW, unless I'm completely mistaken here, were dealing with a large number of RNA bases, a few of which, interact. Then your argument will be, I'm rather sure, something along this line: "Well, you have all these RNA bases, and only a few interact, what is this other than a trivial kind of reaction taking place. This represents no true function. This is just "junk DNA" like we've said all along." It is against this argument---that you have not made, but, which eventually will be made---that I'm stating what I do. And, you'll notice (though you did not quote it), that I said solid state physics will help us understand the kind of function these types of sequences may represent. I still stand by this statement. And, and again not quoted, I said that time will tell. I'll likely be dead by then; yet, I stick to my prediction. Then you can assess whether or not my comments were "irrelevant."PaV_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

The dogma that Evolution is unguided and has only an "appearance of design" is crumbling, Defense of that dogma has become laughable haha. "Mount Improbable" is eroding quickly.ppolish_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

No need to be niminy-piminy about it, TWSYF.Tell Larry what you really think. Just read a hilarious article in the American veterans' blog, VeteransToday.com, by an English barrister called Shrimpton. He writes 'with respect' or 'no offence intended', after writing anything deeply disrespectful or deeply offensive !Axel_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran: Thank you for adding fuel to the already raging fire that is consuming your beloved atheistic religion called Darwinism. It brings great joy to my heart to know that you and the rest of that despicable lot will be caged up in a room tearing into each other like raging primates...which is what you all are. Hopelessly deluded and willfully blind morons!Truth Will Set You Free_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

As to body plan information and as to questions that Darwinists absolutely refuse to honestly address, the human body is composed of, among other things, roughly up to a million unique polypeptides generated by the roughly 20,000 genes that compose the roughly billion-trillion protein molecules total, that typify the total protein composition of a single human body.
Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4
Moreover, the up to, roughly, one million unique polypeptides in humans, since they are generated by alternative splicing events, and since they 'exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles', and since the alternative splicing patterns are very different between even chimps and humans,,,
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
,,, since the alternative splicing patterns, and therefore the protein interaction profiles, are very different between even chimps and humans, then this presents an insurmountable difficulty for Darwinian explanations as to how the human body plan might have come about. As Behe's work in the rarity of unguided Darwinian processes to generate new protein-protein binding sites has shown, proteins simply can’t randomly find “strikingly different interaction profiles” for perhaps "over a million distinct polypeptides”:
“The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146
And to remind readers, Behe’s ‘Edge’ is not just some theoretical musing as Darwinian explanations invariably are, but his ‘Edge’ has now been confirmed in the laboratory:
Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin’s Achilles Heel – Michael Behe – January 17, 2015 Excerpt: Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance. The odds are astronomical for chloroquine because a minimum of two particular malaria mutations are required for resistance. Just one mutation won’t do it. For Darwinism, that is the troublesome significance of Summers et al.: “The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity … is two mutations.” Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step — that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation — then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially. If even a few more unselected mutations are needed, the likelihood rapidly fades away.,,, So what should we conclude from all this? Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events — about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html
Moreover, in regards to body plan information, Stephen Talbott asks a very honest, even a very profound, question in the following article that goes to the very heart of the question of, "exactly where is the body plan information stored that is coordinating all those trillions upon trillions of protein molecules?".
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
The answer to that profound, honest, question of 'what holds that power off for precisely a lifetime?' is certainly not an answer that Darwinists, who are hell bent on atheism being true, are going to like:
Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”)– video 2016 https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater
Verse, Quote, and Music
James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio – Shakespeare Jewel – Who will save your soul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LukEq643Mk
bornagain77_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

All,
“If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?” [Origenes]
I have asked the exact same question in another thread. Interestingly, also here the size of the pufferfish’ genome (see #12, Larry Moran) was offered as an argument that there is no need for body plan information.
WD400: The puffer fish, Fugu, has a genome that’s about 10% of the size of the human genome. Doesn’t seem to prevent it from having a body plan, making a brain, doing biochemistry.
The Neo-Darwinian reasoning goes like this: 1. All the information necessary is in the genome. 2. There cannot be body plan information in our genome because most of it is Junk-DNA. Moreover it’s even less likely that body plan information is in the tiny pufferfish genome. Therefore 3. Body plan information is not necessary.
Larry Moran: … experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome …
Here Moran’s Neutral Theory is unraveling. It finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The theory needs massive amounts of Junk-DNA as a mechanism to produce evolutionary novelties, but by so positing Neutral Theory disqualifies DNA as storage for body plan information. The “solution” is the absurd denial that body plan information is necessary.
Eric Anderson: Those things are required for any complex functionally-integrated system. And in the case of a self-reproducing organism they must, by neo-Darwinian logic, be contained in the DNA. So where are they? We cannot say, we must not say, if we are to have any intellectual integrity or if we are to propose a theory that has a chance of mapping to the real world — we must not say that such things don’t matter, that the rest of the stuff we don’t yet understand (constituting the majority of the storage system) is just junk, that things simply come together by dint of some chemical interaction in the environment. A moment’s reflection about what is required to actually build such a system in the real world should be sufficient to convince any objective observer that much, much more is required than a few sequences for a few proteins contained in a small portion of one part of the organism is sufficient to explain it all. … You can’t just put a bunch of parts in a bag or in an aqueous solution and have them self-assemble into a functional whole. People get confused with biology because they note (correctly so) that certain molecules can react spontaneously with each other. Unfortunately, they then extend that simplistic observation to the unsupportable claim that the whole organism is just a series of natural reactions occurring purely by dint of chemistry. They imagine, in essence, that with biology, you can just put the parts in a solution and, amazingly, an organism will result. Thus, we keep hearing evolutionists try to protect their theory from analysis by arguing that we cannot apply basic principles from our experience, that normal engineering constraints can be disregarded, that “biology is counter-intuitive,” that “biology is different.” This is a tempting thought. At a very simplistic and superficial level it almost even seems believable. That is until we start to dig a bit deeper and realize that so much of what happens in the cell is, as you say, “managed.” Just because some chemical reactions occur between molecules in solution does not mean they will automatically result in a functional organism any more than shaking a bag full of magnets and steel parts will result in a functional machine. Indeed, default, spontaneous chemical reactions are often anathema to what needs to happen for a living cell. The cell often has to actively fight against spontaneous reactions that would otherwise occur. The problem of interfering cross reactions in biology is huge, and is something that has to be carefully and specifically “managed.” The information to do all this managing must be there somewhere. The program has to exist. It does not exist in the parts themselves. It does not exist in the principles of chemistry. Where is it? Almost every aspect of an organism is contingent. If we consider even the most mundane of physical features it becomes clear that chemistry isn’t the answer. What determines where a body part will grow, how long it will grow, what precise shape it will have, and so on? In every case it could be different than it is, so chemistry cannot be the answer. And to say, “well it is managed by other gene products” isn’t helpful either. What makes them manage it thusly, instead of some other way? Where did they get the ability to manage the process? Further, how did the managers get put together, and what managed that process? It makes no more sense to say that when we are dealing with chemicals in solution we don’t need a program because everything happens by chemical reactions, than to claim that when we are dealing with processes in silicon we don’t need a program because everything happens by electrical impulses.
As to the ‘experts argument’ — see #12, Larry Moran —, again Eric Anderson:
… Third, although your point about being an expert in a field is well taken, deferring to the so-called “experts” is a dangerous exercise. Particularly when those “experts” have been indoctrinated through years of secondary, post-secondary, and further academia into a particular viewpoint — the very viewpoint that is under scrutiny. Particularly when those “experts” hold to a worldview that is challenged by the innocent questions being raised about design. It would be hard to find another field where the traditional “expertise” is more at odds with examining the questions posed. Unfortunately, time and again in this particular debate, we have found that the so-called “expert” brings more bias and intellectual baggage to the debate than anyone else. Furthermore, while it is good to be knowledgeable — even an expert, in some narrow, discrete aspect of biology — the primary issues we are dealing with have less to do with a particular organism or a specific chemical reaction than with basic logic, common sense, and a willingness to sit back and think through the issues. So the things I tend to focus on, for example, are less about expertise in a highly-narrow aspect of biology and more of a litmus test to tease out irrational thought and cognitive bias. Fourth, our confidence in the “experts” is not increased when the response to perfectly thoughtful and reasonable questions is to ignore that there is even an issue, to pretend the answers are already in hand, to assert that materialism inevitably holds the key even if it doesn’t have an answer yet, to claim that only the “experts” are qualified to examine and speak on the issue, or to make vague insults about the questioner’s need to brush up on the basics. Particularly, as I said, when the self-proclaimed expert is never quite able to identify precisely which “basics” he thinks will answer the question he conveniently refused to engage. This smacks more of an effort to protect one’s position of expertise and one’s worldview from challenge, than to honestly seek the truth.
Origenes_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

News @32 Thank you so much for your comments - which are always welcome, because your writing style is very refreshing while pointing straight at the current topics. Please, keep writing to our delight here.Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

@32
In Canadian English, “Your question isn’t honest” usually means “Even discussing this is a losing position for me, so I won’t.” One can draw whatever conclusions one wishes from that.
:)Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply