Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Well then, Darwinism IS dead

arroba Email

No matter who is on the Royal Society’s guest list. Get this, from Marcello Barbieri at Royal society:

Abstract: Today there is a very wide consensus on the idea that embryonic development is the result of a genetic programme and of epigenetic processes. Many models have been proposed in this theoretical framework to account for the various aspects of development, and virtually all of them have one thing in common: they do not acknowledge the presence of organic codes (codes between organic molecules) in ontogenesis. Here it is argued instead that embryonic development is a convergent increase in complexity that necessarily requires organic codes and organic memories, and a few examples of such codes are described. This is the code theory of development, a theory that was originally inspired by an algorithm that is capable of reconstructing structures from incomplete information, an algorithm that here is briefly summarized because it makes it intuitively appealing how a convergent increase in complexity can be achieved. The main thesis of the new theory is that the presence of organic codes in ontogenesis is not only a theoretical necessity but, first and foremost, an idea that can be tested and that has already been found to be in agreement with the evidence. More. (paywall)

This stuff wasn’t happening a decade ago.

See also: Is the Royal Society Finally Catching Up with Our Own Upright Biped? (Barry Arrington)


Sometimes Denton sounds like a Darwin who got way more right

Follow UD News at Twitter!

And since it is impossible that an organism instantaneously develops to adulthood, the code must first provide for a representation of the adult form, which representation guides the gradual development to adulthood. And such an area of representation would be the ideal workplace for intelligent design of the organism, basically similar to human imagination. mohammadnursyamsu
“Darwinism” as, amazingly, survived that whole time. It is amazing. Darwinism denies codes. Darwinism does not explain codes. Biological codes are a fact. Darwinism fails as a biological theory. Mung
So glad to see the Darwinists in such disarray. Darwinism is a non-empirical, atheistic philosophy from 1859 when the cells protoplasm (now called cytoplasm) was thought to be a jelly-like substance devoid of organs and internal organization. And that's just one glaring example of how little Darwin knew by today's standards. Modern research in molecular biology and synthetic chemistry completely undermines Darwinism. When I hear devout Darwinists try to explain how natural selection working on unguided random processes gave rise to the information-rich DNA molecule, all I can do is smile and wish them well on their journey. Truth Will Set You Free
This stuff wasn’t happening a decade ago.
Same author saying the same thing for at least 30 years. "Darwinism" as, amazingly, survived that whole time. wd400

Leave a Reply