Intelligent Design

Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science

Spread the love

Rather than a science stopper:

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.” Similarly, in his book Only a Theory, Miller stated, “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such, it’s a literal dead end…”

Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

Luskin offers a number of examples of areas where ID is a fruitful approach, including

Evolutionary computation: ID produces theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the discovery that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.

Anatomy and physiology: ID predicts function for allegedly “vestigial” organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions of nonfunction.

Bioinformatics: ID has helped scientists develop proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.

Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

This is the 12th and final entry in Casey Luskin’s series, which is a modified excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021).

Incidentally, here are two hilarious vids about fake COVID news from Shanghai. Couldn’t think where to put it but wouldn’t want you to miss out.

Note: The content is available. The warning is part of the joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMJ8Sch0pXc

382 Replies to “Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.”

    Just the opposite!

    Research projects usually have four parts:

    Background:
    Methods:
    Results:
    Analysis/Conclusions:

    In each area an ID compatible research project can expand on the traditional science research project. In other words ID researchers can do exactly the same research as all other researchers but also do things that add things that will expand the results and conclusions possible that wouldn’t be available in a traditional research project.

    In other words, ID is not a science stopper, ID is a science enhancer.

              ID is Science+

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Modified from a comment yesterday

    ID does not eliminate anything that current science does.

    ID can do any experiment that current science does.

    ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do.

    ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does.

    ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science.

    ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments.

    But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions.

    ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions.

    For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions.

    It will not use the words “it evolved”, “it was selected”, “it was exapted”, “it emerged” to explain an unknown event or transition.

    ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science.

    ID will add to science. I suggest everyone try to understand instead that ID adds, it does not subtract.

    A point of view that ID subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms is the opposite of the truth.

    For example, ID does not reject natural Evolution a priori. ID just says natural Evolution has no likely mechanism based on the evidence. Therefore, non natural explanations should be considered as highly likely.

    ID expands. It adds.

    It is traditional science that restricts and limits.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    n his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller…

    Lied about ID and equivocated when it came to evolution.

  4. 4
    Fred Hickson says:

    Jerry

    ID is not a science stopper

    That’s certainly true de facto. Science proceeds merrily on without a backward glance at ID.

    For those unsure, yes that was a bad analogy! 😉

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    de factoScience

    A subset of ID.

    proceeds merrily on without a backward glance at ID

    Yes, de factoScience is a science stopper.

    You just agreed with my observation that

             ID is Science+

    Thank you!

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Science proceeds merrily on without a backward glance at ID.

    Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    I think there’s a typo in the headline; it should read:

    Casey Luskin: ID As Flakey Approach To Science

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    I think there’s a typo in the headline; it should read

    ChuckDarwin still batting zero.

    The comment should read

    ChuckDarwin is a flake.

    Will he ever get anything right?

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data

    Since observations that can be explained by known natural causes are eliminated, then that’s not true.
    Kenneth Miller is a Christian with some very strange ideas about religion as well as about the origin and development of life on earth – including odd notions about the God and the origin of human life.
    Miller has to reconcile quite a lot of his Christian view with his anti-ID notions – and he has done a poor job of it so far.

  10. 10
    Fasteddious says:

    It’s very simple really: materialistic evolution theory insists on natural processes only, while ID allows for both natural processes and intelligent agents to act. Therefore ID is broader based and open to more possibilities than materialistic evolution theory, which has ruled out intelligent processes by a priori edict. ID can look at the evidence and see where natural processes work and where intelligent agency seems to be required to account for what has happened. ID is not trying to force anything into the intelligent agency side (much less “everything” as some critics like to claim). Meanwhile, naturalism, having chosen to ignore the possibility of ID must spend a lot of time and resources chasing after extremely unlikely possibilities (while ignoring their probability) in order to account for the evidence. They end up with silly theories for the origin of life, and the appearance of new life forms, thereby wasting the resources, and slowing down scientific advances. Examples abound – “junk DNA” being just one.

  11. 11
    relatd says:

    I am disappointed with Ken Miller’s comments. He appears to be confused. He should know that evolution as it appears in Biology textbooks is anti-God. This means that purely natural, unguided, directionless processes led to human beings. God was not a bystander.

  12. 12
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Relatd

    True. Darwinism would say that even our belief in God is a product of unguided, purposeless forces that only has value for survival and reproduction.
    Miller is very confused. He doesn’t even understand his own religion. So there’s no wonder why he is so mistaken about what ID is.

  13. 13
    relatd says:

    Here, https://www.brown.edu/news/2016-02-13/aaas

    Kenneth Miller views ID as being against evolution. Where is the attack? If he believes man appeared after some mysterious chemical reaction that spontaneously became alive, then where is his knowing that this is, in fact, the way life began? I respect correct observations and research designed to stop or slow disease processes, but what are Biologists actually telling students? That nothing made you? I don’t think science can make such claims.

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Real science is a continuous process of investigation and exploration of observable reality.

    ID is concerned only with confirmation of the existence of their preferred “Designer”. I say “preferred” because, for most Western ID proponents, I suspect it is highly unlikely they would accept Allah or Shiva or Zeus as the Designer. Only the Christian God would fill the bill.

    And once the existence of the Designer has been established, at least to their satisfaction, that will be an end to it. They will no more conduct a scientific investigation into the nature of this designer than Christians have into the nature of their God.

    So, yes, ID is a science-stopper.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/13

    Kenneth Miller views ID as being against evolution. Where is the attack?

    You could review some of the posts on this blog as a starting point.

    I respect correct observations and research designed to stop or slow disease processes, but what are Biologists actually telling students? That nothing made you?

    Do you have any evidence that biologists are teaching their students that nothing made us?

    I don’t think science can make such claims.

    Science might argue that, if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer/creator, then life must have emerged from natural processes and there are ongoing investigations into that possibility but, at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.

  16. 16
    BobRyan says:

    There is order in the universe, which is some of the evidence for ID. Chaos cannot create order. Hurricanes do not come about in random locations. They must meet specific criteria to form. If there were no intelligent designer, there would be no rules in place. Hurricanes could form over any body of water, which does not happen.

  17. 17
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Seversky
    if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer/creator, then life must have emerged from natural processes

    🙂 Another one bite the dust admitting that it’s not about science. We knew that Seversky it’s not a secret that atheism lack logical coherence AND IS A BELIEF.

  18. 18
    Fred Hickson says:

    You missed this:

    …at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.

  19. 19
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Fred Hickson
    You missed this:
    …at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.

    🙂 Talking about self-defeating statements.
    ” life must have emerged from natural processes”
    “we simply don’t know

  20. 20
    chuckdarwin says:

    SA/12
    This is where the rubber hits the road with the ID crowd:

    Miller is very confused. He doesn’t even understand his own religion. So there’s no wonder why he is so mistaken about what ID is.

    It apparently is not enough that you act as the self-appointed arbiter of science, you’ve now extended that role to theology and religion…..

  21. 21
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The argument:

    “ID is a science-stopper. If ID is true, then nobody will ever be able to do any science again. Therefore, even if ID is true, we should pretend that it is false, so we can keep our jobs and keep the good memory of Darwin alive.”

    … is weak. But, it’s an argument, of sorts. The quality of one’s opposition can be measured in the kinds of arguments they provide. Ken Miller is a perfect example.

    “Everything is grist to the [anti-ID] mill. Its dialectic can exploit the smallest [imagined] contradictions; it can provoke, exacerbate and envenom every conflict …”
    — Jean Ousset

  22. 22
    ET says:

    seversky:’

    Real science is a continuous process of investigation and exploration of observable reality.

    You don’t know what science entails.

    ID is concerned only with confirmation of the existence of their preferred “Designer”.

    Two lies in one sentence! ID is NOT about the Designer(s) and ID is concerned with the detection and study of intelligent design in nature.

    And once the existence of the Designer has been established, at least to their satisfaction, that will be an end to it.

    Your ignorance is not an argument and all you have is your ignorance. Good luck with that.

  23. 23
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    Ken Miller wrote a book called “Finding Darwin’s God”. So, he makes his religious views part of the conversation. Dawkins wrote a “science” book called “The God Delusion”.
    So, let’s not have a double-standard here.

    As for Ken Miller’s Catholicism, I can respect that you wouldn’t want to discuss it since you’re not of the Faith, but I share the same religion as Miller and so yes, I have some authority and role as an arbiter of the same.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Science might argue that, if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer/creator, then life must have emerged from natural processes and there are ongoing investigations into that possibility but, at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.

    There is plenty of scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. There isn’t any evidence that nature emerged from natural processes as natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have produced it. You only have your denial of ID. You don’t have anything else but your denial and lies.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    IDists are perfectly happy with teaching “we don’t know”. The problem is that is NOT what is being taught! Lies are being taught to unsuspecting children. And that is child abuse.

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    LCD
    Good job

    There is no compelling evidence that life emerged from natural processes. So, therefore, we have to conclude that life must have emerged from natural processes?

  27. 27
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If you admit that you “simply don’t know” then ID is a legitimate proposal. You can’t deny it because you don’t know.

    Kitzmiller v. Dover made that simple logic illegal. So, as above, kids are taught lies instead.

  28. 28
    JHolo says:

    The question isn’t whether or not ID is science. The real question is why ID doesn’t do science.

  29. 29
    jerry says:

    why ID doesn’t do science.

    Do you have trouble reading?

          ID is Science+

    Aside:once religion has been introduced that should tripple the comments or more.

    Aside2:

    the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know

    That is the ID answer. So those who make it are endorsing ID.

  30. 30
    JHolo says:

    Evolution started with the proposition that natural selection acting on heritable variation was responsible for the variety of life we see today. For this to be plausible there had to be a means of increasing variation, and it had to be heritable, so researches started looking for this source.

    Mendel’s work was re-discovered and population genetics was born. But it didn’t stop there. They still didn’t know the mechanisms involved so the researchers continued and discovered DNA, RNA, ribosomes, etc. but they still weren’t satisfied so they kept digging and discovered HGT, epigenetics, genetic drift, etc. throughout this entire process the theoretical model was adjusted to better fit the observations and experiments. That is how science works.

    ID sees something that looks designed and is happy. Scientists haven’t been able to reproduce the flagellum using random mutation and natural selection so ID is the better argument. When asked why they are not researching the possible mechanisms of implementation and timing of the design, they say that this is not part of ID. This is not how science works.

  31. 31
    jerry says:

    Mendel’s work was re-discovered and population genetics was born. But it didn’t stop there. They still didn’t know the mechanisms involved so the researchers continued and discovered DNA, RNA, ribosomes, etc. but they still weren’t satisfied so they kept digging and discovered HGT, epigenetics, genetic drift, etc. throughout this entire process the theoretical model was adjusted to better fit the observations and experiments. That is how science works.

    And we got the science of genetics which ID endorses.

    I fail to understand your point. You are constantly introducing nonsense and acting like it is true.

              ID is Science+

    Aside: Darwinian process as an explanation for Evolution is self refuting. As noted they are great for genetics because even there they have to be very limited.

    Aside2: we are a long way from punctuated equilibrium.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    JHolo is a liar and equivocating coward. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. So, clearly you don’t know jack about ID, science or evolution.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Earth to JHolo- Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science.

  34. 34
    Querius says:

    Seversky wrote:

    Real science is a continuous process of investigation and exploration of observable reality.

    What about non-material, unobservable reality?

    For example, let’s consider the wavefunction, which is considered fundamental to reality. Is it observable?

    -Q

  35. 35
    chuckdarwin says:

    SA/23
    Two things I took away from sixteen years of Catholic education are that (1) the only arbiter of “true understanding” of Catholicism is the Vatican (not you) and (2) the Catholic Church has never had any serious problems with evolution, even during the tenure of its most doctrinaire popes, such as Benedict, and “officially” accepted evolution in Pius’ 1950 Humani generis. In fact Benedict characterized the so-called debate between American-style creationism and evolution as “absurd”:

    [I]n the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd…. (emphasis added)

    (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html)

    And, in fact, in 2015 the Vatican’s chief astronomer, George Coyne, SJ, said this:

    Intelligent design isn’t science, even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

    (https://www.foxnews.com/story/vatican-astronomer-intelligent-design-not-science)

    It looks like it is you, not Prof. Miller, who “doesn’t even understand his own religion.”

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Earth to chuckdarwin- Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. However, if evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is true, then Catholicism is false. The Bible is false.

  37. 37
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    New “scientific evidences” from darwinists:
    1. The Church X or Y “officially” accepted evolution , therefore evolution is true. 🙂
    2. “Vatican’s chief astronomer”(???) , George Coyne, SJ, said this ID not science , therefore evolution is true.

    🙂 Science it’s about scientific evidences(shocking isn’t it? ) not about what somebody says. without bringing the evidences that substantiate the claim.
    PS: If Einstein, Darwin, Fauci, Obama, Trump, Musk,etc. make a claim that is not backed up by the evidences but get traction because they have a bigger megaphone than normal people on the street then anyone can dismiss the claim as being a nonsense.

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    Jerry @31 (and previous),

    ID conforms to all basic definitions of the scientific method. What it doesn’t do is arbitrarily exclude non-materialistic interactions. For example, space-time is non-materialistic in that there’s no fundamental direct measurement of it.

    Imagine you’re floating in space-time. No body, no heartbeat, no objects. How do you measure time without something periodic? How can you measure space without an object to compare it with?

    There’s a small town in my state where people sometimes claim that they “spent a month there one week.” I once flew over Greenland with a beautiful view of icy terrain that had many almost parallel cracks in it, but I couldn’t tell how wide they were (or our altitude).

    Thus, I contend that ID science recognizes our limitations. We look for evidences and measure what we can of reality, but by no means is what we can observe necessarily the entirety of reality. And sometimes it’s a matter of perspective or ignorance.

    In a high school physics class, we were shown a clip of four men in suits sitting on chairs at each side of a square wooden table. Each in turn rolled a ball across the table to the man seated directly opposite, but in each case, the ball took a turn and ended in the hands of the person adjacent. The clip stopped and the teacher asked us why the ball took a 90 degree turn.

    We all had interesting theories that were wrong. After no one else could come up with any new theories, the teacher continued the clip. The camera dollied back, revealing that the entire setup was on a giant rotating turntable. The ball was actually maintaining a straight path, but the men and the table were turning beneath the ball.

    So, by excluding a portion of reality not readily accessible to us, we get only part of the picture. The evidence brushed off are the strange, unexplained effects that might not be random at all.

    Another fundamental assumption of science is that we’re actually capable of understanding nature. We generate models and equations, but understandability is also not a given.

    So, from my perspective, ID isn’t Science Plus, but rather deterministic materialism is deliberately Science Minus. Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance, choosing not to assume things have a purpose. I believe this is due to ideological poisoning and not a scientific position.

    -Q

  39. 39
    Fred Hickson says:

    ID conforms to all basic definitions of the scientific method.

    I’m puzzled as to what you mean by this. In fact I suspect it is meaningless. I’m unaware of any testable hypothesis relating to ID.

  40. 40
    Querius says:

    Years ago, I noticed an embarrassing typo on Kenneth Miller’s website. I sent him an email alerting him to it, but I encouraged him not to correct it, since this mutation might be on its way to evolve incrementally into a profoundly original thought!

    No response to my humor, but the next day, the typo was gone. Hmm. Maybe he needed more monkeys and more typewriters! (smile)

    -Q

  41. 41
    Fred Hickson says:

    Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance

    This is untrue. Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, selection by the niche and that can be considered a form of design.

    Choosing not to assume things have a purpose.

    Not true. Many organisms show purposeful behavior.

  42. 42
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @39.

    I’m puzzled as to what you mean by this. In fact I suspect it is meaningless. I’m unaware of any testable hypothesis relating to ID.

    Not surprising. Of course, you suspect it’s meaningless, just like Darwinists suspect that most DNA is “junk” and that over 100 organs in the human body were once considered “vestigial” and I’m sure there are other “vestigial” organs in other living organisms.

    There. You now have two (2) testable hypotheses relating to ID. And since you’ll likely want more, here’s a link:

    https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#nopred

    -Q

  43. 43
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    It looks like it is you, not Prof. Miller, who “doesn’t even understand his own religion.”

    Someone here recently said: “It apparently is not enough that you act as the self-appointed arbiter of science, you’ve now extended that role to theology and religion…..”

    Kind of strange. But even stranger, here’s Ken Miller in an evolution textbook:

    “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.‚
    (Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

    Ken Miller is featured here:
    Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller claims increasing information in life forms is easy
    https://uncommondescent.com/religion/catholic-darwinist-ken-miller-claims-increasing-information-in-life-forms-is-easy/

    https://uncommondescent.com/religion/catholic-darwinist-ken-miller-claims-increasing-information-in-life-forms-is-easy/#comment-566448

    As for Ken Miller being a Catholic, how does he reconcile with Catholic dogma his apparent belief that life as we find it now came about mindlessly and accidentally? Here is the belief of orthodox Catholics:

    If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
    — Vatican Council I, can. 2 § I

    Good questions … how does he reconcile? I don’t think he even tries.

    According to biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the most prominent proponents of “theistic” evolution, God did not plan the specific outcomes of evolution—including the development of human beings. Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” While God knew that undirected evolution was so wonderful it would create some kind of creature capable of praising Him, that creature could have been “a big-brained dinosaur” or “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than us.
    http://www.firstthings.com/blo…..direction/

    StephenB
    May 27, 2015 at 8:59 am

    harry, I have often thought along those same lines. In my post “Christian Darwinism and the problem of apriori intent,” (June 18, 2011) I wrote this:

    “The God of the Christian Darwinists does not even know what He is producing until He produces it. At that point, He looks back as if to say, “What do we have here? I wonder who initiated this process. Oh wait, that was me!”

    As above, Ken Miller is totally confused. To preserve Darwinism, he claims that God didn’t know what would emerge from the evolutionary process and that human beings were truly an accident – occurring outside of the power and knowledge of God. A “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” could have emerged, to God’s surprise. Ken Miller is good evidence of what Darwinism will do to you – scramble your brain and destroy your faith all for the sake of lies and falsehoods.

    Miller is a Christian who thinks there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature – none and never has been any. The life of Jesus Christ shows no sign of the presence of intelligent design acting beyond what natural laws can do?

  44. 44
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Miller:

    Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”

    That denies the Catholic teaching that humans were created as “Imago Dei”.

    We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.
    — Pope Benedict XVI

  45. 45
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius @40 ha ha – excellent!

  46. 46
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Here’s Miller with Levine – in an Evolution textbook:

    “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
    (Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

    After challenges from various sources, Miller deleted the anti-God references from his textbooks.

  47. 47
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @42,

    Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, selection by the niche and the niche can be considered a form of design.

    Bingo! Welcome to Intelligent Design!

    ID officially takes no position on the source of design. It sticks to the inference of design, which pragmatically facilitates scientific inquiry. Conversely, if something is presumed junk, who will get funding for investigating junk?

    Not true. Many organisms show purposeful behavior.

    Yep, same thing here. Congratulations! By inferring design in unknown effects, you’ve now joined with those of us who facilitate scientific inquiry and progress!

    -Q

  48. 48
    Fred Hickson says:

    ou now have two (2) testable hypotheses relating to ID. And since you’ll likely want more, here’s a link:

    The link is to KF’s strawman waffle. I said I am unaware of a testable hypothesis relating to ID. Can you name one, then we can look at it?

  49. 49
    relatd says:

    The Catholic Church has published some carefully worded statements. Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne are not credible spokesmen for the Catholic position on evolution. God knew what man would look like.

    Pope John Paul II delivered a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996. It was misquoted by some and supposedly showed that the Church accepted evolution. That is not true. The Pope made it clear that the theory, as viewed by the Church, encompasses a number of theories of evolution.

    “And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more
    accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required
    here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of
    evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are
    materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final
    judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.”

    In 2005, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn about evolution. The original article is titled Finding Design in Nature and is still available by signing up at the New York Times site. In an article published in First Things, Cardinal Schoenborn gave the key points from his original article:

    • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    • Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

    • Again quoting John Paul II: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

    Source: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/01/the-designs-of-science

    Unlike science, the Church can combine various types of knowledge and methods of knowing to give a complete answer to the question of human origins.

  50. 50
    relatd says:

    Chuckdarwin at 35,

    The Church accepted nothing in 1950. Have you read Humani Generis? It is very clear that Pope Pius XII was only giving those competent to do so, permission to study evolution and to present their arguments, for and against. Then the Pope wrote:

    “However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”

    So, it is very clear that in 1950, no decision had yet been made.

  51. 51
    Fred Hickson says:

    Bingo! Welcome to Intelligent Design!

    This is disingenuous. I’ve pointed out your statement Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance. is false and that evolution is a non-random process and it is as if I hadn’t commented. You are as monologous as KF.

  52. 52
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Relatd

    Interesting dialogue between Stephen Barr and Cdl Schoenborn – thanks.

    This document is devastating for the Catholic-Darwinists:

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

    It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

    He condemns “Neo-Darwinist” evolution.
    Key point also: There’s an “ontological leap” – so human life “cannot be explained in purely scientific terms”. There can be no gradual evolution between animal and human. Instead, there has to be a “leap” – beyond the physical (with the creation of the soul).
    Ken Miller is so totally confused it’s not even worth taking him seriously.

    And Pius XII was condemning Teilhard in 1950, without naming him. Teilhard is the classic theistic evolutionist and in the end it’s nonsense. He’s still got some appreciation among aging boomers today, but I wouldn’t call it a movement towards anything. It’s more like a fan club.

  53. 53
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Relatd
    Chuckdarwin at 35,
    So, it is very clear that in 1950, no decision had yet been made.

    Then CD have no clue about subject and he just spread whatever Atheist Church told him to spread?
    This is a shock for me because we never heard in all human history about a lying atheist, they never do that.

  54. 54
    relatd says:

    I think this does not require a “movement” just an acceptance of knowledge given to us by the Church. The document titled Communion and Stewardship goes on to say:

    From part 69.

    ‘But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles….It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).’

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ken Miller: “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
    Vatican document: “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist …

  56. 56
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Relatd

    I fully agree – and I do accept.

  57. 57
    Fred Hickson says:

    In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

    So, even the Catholic church has to beat up strawman rather than admit evolution does have a guiding factor: the niche environment.

  58. 58
    Silver Asiatic says:

    all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence

    That’s a nice phrase by St. Thomas: “as they participate in existence”. That’s ontological realism. Our existence is from the source of all being – so we participate in that. We “received existence” from the source.

  59. 59
    relatd says:

    FH at 57,

    The Catholic Church has the reality of God and the work of divine providence. Did life appear from lifeless chemicals? And once the first living thing appeared, what did it eat? How did it stay alive?

  60. 60
    Fred Hickson says:

    The Catholic Church has the reality of God and the work of divine providence. Did life appear from lifeless chemicals? And once the first living thing appeared, what did it eat? How did it stay alive?

    The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life on Earth, not its origin.

    There seems a wilful determination here to attack straw rather than reality.

  61. 61
    Fred Hickson says:

    And can nobody (apart from Paul Nelson) offer up a scientific, testable “ID” hypothesis or admit one doesn’t yet exist. It would be the honest thing to do.

  62. 62
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, I tire of your repetition of long since corrected misrepresentations. First, the UD Correctives have clearly stated falsifiability criteria, and secondly any number of people in recent weeks while you were present. In case you missed it, ID is a case of abductive reasoning (as is common in science) and in particular inference to best, tested explanation, on reliable sign. As a result, if anyone reliably provides an actual case where functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] beyond 500 – 1,000 bits is observed to come about by Monod’s blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, then the key sign would collapse. However, this is rather like saying, if someone comes up with a perpetuum mobile, thermodynamics would collapse. Thus, we have a falsifiability criterion, one that is open to testing every day. KF

    PS, as has been pointed out several times in your presence, Wikipedia inadvertently testifies to such tests (never mind its slanderous hit piece on ID), in its infinite monkeys theorem article. Let me clip a key test, one readily done on computers. And yes, we don’t even need to do elaborate exercises on E coli etc, a simple valid computer exercise is more than good enough (Weasel is not valid):

    One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[27]

    A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

    RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d

    This indicates that config spaces 10^100 shy of the 3.27*10^150 possibilities at the lower end of the FSCO/I threshold can be successfully searched by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. But that is 10^100 short of a needed zone. Of course a typical protein is about 200 – 300 AAs and the config space implied runs at 4.32 bits/aa in the chain. The lower end is already 864 bits. A config space doubles per additional bit, and we are looking at 1.23*10^260 possibilities.

    PPS, OoL is of course the root of the tree of life icon. And we all did biology, we know textbooks still and for many decades have presented OoL scenarios to address that root. Too often they make them seem far simpler and more plausible than is warranted. Where, the same search challenge for OoL is compounded to reach the islands of complex coherent function required for main body plans. That’s why we can point to the coded alphanumeric text and algorithms involved and highlight that these are reliable signs of design. Dismissive talking points notwithstanding.

  63. 63
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    So, from my perspective, ID isn’t Science Plus, but rather deterministic materialism is deliberately Science Minus.

    Agreed – and that’s a great way to phrase it.
    A blind, mindless, unintelligent source produces nihilistic results. Purpose, meaning, direction, design, goals, guidance – none of that can exist.

  64. 64
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF

    You ommitted to mention a scientific, testable ID hypothesis. Or do you agree with Paul Nelson that such a thing does not yet exist.

  65. 65
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF

    Monkeys on typewriters! It’s never going to sink in, is it? No matter how many times I point out there is a non-random element to evolution, everyone here will continue to blather on about blind chance.

  66. 66
    Fred Hickson says:

    A blind, mindless, unintelligent source produces nihilistic results. Purpose, meaning, direction, design, goals, guidance – none of that can exist.

    The niche environment designs populations of organisms, which is a type of guidance, individual organisms have purpose. These things exist.

  67. 67
    ET says:

    Earth to Fred Hickson- The non-random element is TRIVIAL in that not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated. Why doesn’t THAT sink in, Fred? Why do you think that your willful ignorance is an argument, Fred?

  68. 68
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson, clueless dolt:

    The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life on Earth, not its origin.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution and how life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved.

    You are obviously just a willfully ignorant troll

  69. 69
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    So, even the Catholic church has to beat up strawman rather than admit evolution does have a guiding factor: the niche environment.

    So, even Fred has to spew nonsense rather than admit there isn’t any evidence the niche environment guides. You are beyond pathetic, Fred.

  70. 70
    ET says:

    One testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    Let Fred flail away…

  71. 71
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Mutations are random. The environment is random. Materialism is a blind, mindless, purposeless cause – without goal or direction. It cannot design – it’s the antithesis of design. “To design” something requires an active agent. Niches are not active agents – they can’t and don’t design anything.

  72. 72
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    The niche environment designs populations of organisms, which is a type of guidance, individual organisms have purpose.

    Why is peer review absent of such a thing, Fred? Why are biology and evolution textbooks devoid of the idea, Fred?

    You don’t get to make shit up and try to pawn it off as science. And all you do is make shit up and try to pawn it off as science.

  73. 73
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, We both know that that FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1000 bits is a reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration is a perfectly empirically testable claim, and one that the monkeys test looks at. It is of course directly relevant to the root of the tree of life icon and to the formation of branches. We further both know this is a bridge to linked statistical thermodynamics (which comes up in the article) and that OoL has to appeal to physics and chemistry so it is the clearest case. Credibly, language using algorithmic design informed by deep knowledge of polymers at the root . . . something those investigating nanotech recognise . . . and so design at the root so pervasive design is a serious view. Further, we both know that in former years many proposals as to how such chance and necessity design could arise were put up but have uniformly failed, including evolutionary computing. We both further know that origin of main body plans is similarly unexplained. This reduces the evolutionary hypothesis for macro evolution to gross extrapolation beyond reasonable search resources, no answer to systematic gaps between body plans and so forth. The evolutionary frame is institutionalised but does not have competent causal mechanisms to drive it. Accounting for OoL is the most obvious case but accounting for body plans is just as bad. KF

  74. 74
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Wikipedia: Design

    A design is a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product or process. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design.
    The design usually has to satisfy certain goals and constraints; may take into account aesthetic, functional, economic, or socio-political considerations

    Niches do not design things. Evolution acts without goal or purpose. To design is a verb that requires a subject capable of creating a plan that satisfies goals and which takes into account various factors.
    Niches are unintelligent. They are not agents that design anything.
    Niches have no plan or purpose or goals – they do not design anything, and cannot design.

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, language etc, remember the broken window theory. A crocodile death roll in the gutter does not help anyone. KF

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, design is aptly defined for ID purposes as intelligently directed configuration, or in one word used by Paley way back, contrivance. I of course would like to see serious addressing of his self replicating watch thought exercise in ch 2. KF

  77. 77
    relatd says:

    The common thought is once the evolution engine is started, it will continue to produce living organisms but it has no goals or direction. That is the primary problem. But it cannot be assumed that the development of life works that way.

    For example, humans, we are told, had pre-human ancestors, such as Neanderthals. They weren’t modern humans like us, right? There is evidence that Neanderthals and so-called modern humans interbred.

    https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

  78. 78
    relatd says:

    FH at 60,

    It is time for you to explain the origin of life. How did dead/non-living chemicals give rise to the first living thing?

  79. 79
    ET says:

    My apologies, but that is what he is doing.

  80. 80
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF – Yes, “intelligently directed”. So design is a product of intelligence.
    Darwin was opposing Paley’s idea.
    Dawkins says there’s the “appearance of design” but no evidence of design.

  81. 81
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Silver Asiatic
    Niches are not active agents – they can’t and don’t design anything.

    🙂 Of course , the active agent is the organism that try to increase its control over external events but darwinists need to swap the active function from organism to environment . Adaptation(fine-tuning) is searching for stability in a framework that have variable edges but a stable center that try to call all the shots . Stability lies in the system as a whole, not in the gene unit .The stretch of DNA that is “a gene” has meaning only within the system as a whole.
    In chess a piece has meaning only in the context of all the other pieces inside the system(chessboard+all the pieces as signs + “the function” of each piece as meaning + all the possible interactions between all the functions). A knight alone on the board /or on the carpet has no meaning by itself ,because the context (the system ) is everything . A sign/code is created to work only inside of a certain system. Outside that system the code/the gene/ the chess piece is losing its meaning/function.

  82. 82
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @45, 66,

    I said I am unaware of a testable hypothesis relating to ID. Can you name one, then we can look at it?

    Looks like you didn’t bother looking at the link I provided.

    Ok, how about this testable hypothesis:
    Junk DNA, now renamed to non-protein coding DNA is not useless “junk” as Susumu Ohno suggested, but actually has an undiscovered function.

    Or this one:
    So called “vestigial” organs are not useless vestiges of evolution, but rather appear to be designed to serve important biological functions.

    Incidentally, the thyroid was once considered a vestigial organ with no known purpose, but it’s now classified a ductless gland.

    I’ve pointed out your statement Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance is false and that evolution is a non-random process and it is as if I hadn’t commented.

    Actually, with your own two fingers you typed that the “design” came from nature itself, thus indicating that, among other things, genetic drift is not random as is currently believed, but is subject to non-random drivers.

    I know that this is uncomfortable for you to accept, but that’s exactly the position of ID advocates by admitting that studying biological organisms have a type of guidance (and thus is better served by the presumption of design)!

    But now you’re trying to squirm out of it by being obnoxious and trying to take back what you tapped out by redefining random mutations as not being the source of random genetic drift.

    Don’t believe me? Well, just read the definition of Genetic Drift here:

    https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Drift

    Looks like you’ve been converted in spite of yourself. LOL

    -Q

  83. 83
    Fred Hickson says:

    Junk DNA, now renamed to non-protein coding DNA is not useless “junk” as Susumu Ohno suggested, but actually has an undiscovered function.

    Huge error here. Junk DNA is DNA that performs no function for the host organism (viral elements, the broken GULOP gene in primates). Non-coding DNA is functional DNA that does not get translated into proteins. Anyway, you say that an ID hypothesis is that all DNA sequences in all organisms are essential to those organisms? Well, that fails.

  84. 84
    Fred Hickson says:

    Q

    So called “vestigial” organs are not useless vestiges of evolution, but rather appear to be designed to serve important biological functions.

    I think it better to refer to vestigial structures. You are confusing function and ancestry. A penguin flipper’s ancestry is an adaptation to flight. It’s function has changed (exaptation) to swimming. Design by the niche. Evolutionary theory does not say vestigial structures are useless but they no longer function as their ancestral purpose. Your hypothesis fails.

  85. 85
    Fred Hickson says:

    I haven’t mentioned genetic drift. It happens that in small populations over time will lose diversity as alleles competing at a locus not under selection are lost are lost to fixation. But I don’t find the phenomenon of drift signifiant except to make space for new variation.

    Prediction fails.

  86. 86
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @84,

    Huge error here. Junk DNA is DNA that performs no function for the host organism (viral elements, the broken GULOP gene in primates). Non-coding DNA is functional DNA that does not get translated into proteins. Anyway, you say that an ID hypothesis is that all DNA sequences in all organisms are essential to those organisms? Well, that fails.

    Huge error on your part!

    Dr. Ohno made no such distinction as you have. The fact is that the amount of so-called “junk” DNA keeps shrinking just as happened to the list of “vestigial organs” (what they were originally called) that kept shrinking, while Darwinists pretended they had known this all along.

    I provided you with two (2) testable hypotheses, but I’m aware that Darwinists keep moving their goal posts or redefining their terms as new discoveries come to light that falsify their outdated, racist theory as elaborated in Darwin’s 1871 travesty, The Descent of Man, which he wrote to justify the uncounted brutalities against brown people.

    Didn’t you read the link I provided for the definition of Genetic Drift indicating that it was random?

    According to Darwin’s theory, genetic drift is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution despite your pretending that it doesn’t apply to your previous claims.

    Since you won’t believe me, here’s a link to a resource page published by the University of California at Berkeley on the topic of genetic drift and evolution:

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/genetic-drift/

    Here’s how it starts out:

    Genetic drift is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes and other genetic elements of the next generation will be those of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations — there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

    It would help if you checked your fallacious baloney before posting it or at least try to provide references before just making stuff up.

    -Q

  87. 87
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, 65

    Monkeys on typewriters! It’s never going to sink in, is it? No matter how many times I point out there is a non-random element to evolution, everyone here will continue to blather on about blind chance.

    Your refusal to acknowledge our addressing of a point does not entail that we have failed to address the point, actually many times. All it does is it exposes your fundamental hyperskeptical dismissiveness. However, for record:

    1: Darwin’s proposal is in effect predicated on a tree of life branching incrementally across a continent of viable configurations, but this is already questionable.

    2; That is, complex multi part function depending on matched, organised coupled parts and tuning of parameters is observed instead to come in deeply isolated islands of function in large configuration spaces, so even if we ignore the question of ruggedness within islands, the dominant problem is to find shorelines of functional configuration amidst seas of nonfunction. With relatively speaking negligible search resources and time once the 500 to 1,000 bit threshold is on the table.

    3: The first key issue is to create C-chem, aqueous medium, encapsulated, smart gated, metabolising process-flow network cell based life that uses codes, algorithms and molecular, polymer based nanotech. This is the root of tree of life problem and it is a natural part of the problem,

    4: In short playing datum line games that beg the biggest question, root, imply failure at the outset. The evidence is, such come from and reflect signs of design.

    5: Design is at the root, it is available everywhere thereafter so In this context, it is question begging to impose thereafter a lockout of design under various guises and excuses.

    6: Given the above, we may summarise Darwin et al:

    chance variation [CV] + differential reproductive success [DRS] –> descent with unlimited modification [DWUM]

    DWUM + time, space, ecological circumstances –> branching tree of life pattern, BTOL and origin of diverse body plans [OoBP]

    BTOL + OoBP –> life forms in fossil record and today in macroevolutionary, incrementalist patterns [ME]

    7: At outset, DRS subtracts less successive variants at a given time, it has no foresight. It therefore is not the SOURCE of variation, which leaves only chance variation, and the hope of a smoothly varying BTOL pattern to lead to a branching walk.

    8: However, the implied continent of function is implausible, islands of function are plausible due to organisation, matching etc required for complex configuration based function. In WW2, it was discovered that parts built to the same blueprints and dimensions were incompatible because of small differences of units between US, UK, Australia.

    9: The islands of function issue starts with deep isolation of several thousand protein fold domains in AA sequence space. Significance can be seen from misfolded prions and presence of chaperonin structures to foster correct folding. It continues up to things like diversity of sex determination systems. It is reflected in systematic gaps among fossils where 1/4 million species in museums and billions of fossils seen in the ground remove appeals to sparse sampling.

    10: In addition, we can reasonably estimate that novel body plans require 10 – 100+ mn base pairs of new genetic information. The blind chance + mechanical necessity dynamic lacks power to discover shorelines of function.

    11: Intelligently directed configuration, as observed, readily does so. Where we exemplify we do not exhaust possibilities.

    KF

  88. 88
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius:

    Dr. Ohno made no such distinction as you have. The fact is that the amount of so-called “junk” DNA keeps shrinking…

    Prior to 1953, scientists did not have a structure for DNA. Models improve with knowledge. Yes, we will continue to find function in some sequences but we already confirm some DNA really is “junk”. The broken human GULOP gene is an example that fails your hypothesis.

  89. 89
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF,

    You continue to speak in bad analogies. If your model doesn’t fit reality, you should discard it and look for one that is closer to reality. Well, you can do what you want but if your intent is to convince anyone…

  90. 90
    Fred Hickson says:

    It would help if you checked your fallacious baloney before posting it or at least try to provide references before just making stuff up.

    Read more carefully. I don’t dispute drift happens. It can be significant in small populations.

  91. 91
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Querius

    My purpose (heh) is not to defend evolutionary theory and convince you and others here that it is a useful working model that won’t be discarded until a better one turns up.

    I just feel the need to point out that people here in general are attacking a strawman when they should be thinking about proposing a genuine, testable, scientific ID hypothesis while I’m waiting for Upright Biped to turn up.

  92. 92
    Fred Hickson says:

    Just one point on “islands of function”. This is a version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. I’ve seen Keefe and Szostak’s work mentioned before here by ID skeptics. Random protein sequences can and do show function (K & S only looked at ATP affinity). Evolution, the accumulation of small changes which selection of proteins with “improved” function is not a one in gazillion all-at-once process. It’s gradual.

    Yes, I am aware selection acts on whole phenotypes.

  93. 93
    Bob O'H says:

    Querius @ 82 –

    Junk DNA, now renamed to non-protein coding DNA is not useless “junk” as Susumu Ohno suggested, but actually has an undiscovered function.

    Oh no! Ohno didn’t suggest “junk” DNA was useless.
    I guess it’s par for the course that the best “prediction” ID can come up with is based on ignorance, and predicting something after the fact.

    We know that some non-coding DNA is vital (start at centromeres and telomeres), but other non-coding DNA can be safely removed. How do we know? Because we’ve done it.

    So, we know (and have known for a long time) that some “junk” DNA has a purpose, but others don’t (how else would you explain the difference in genome size between wheat and rice, for example?). This makes me wonder what your “prediction” actually is: is it that all junk DNA has a function, or that only some junk DNA has a function?

  94. 94
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, your attempt to hyperskeptically dismiss by alleged disanalogy, fails. Do I have to remind you how for example DNA has actually been used as a general purpose memory storing digital information, therefore accessible to storing data and instructions, or that it has been artificially chemically extended etc? As for configuration spaces, WLOG, any 3-d functional entity may be described by a chain of bits in some description language (cf. AutoCAD etc) and so can be located in a virtual space that is cut down from phase space [position-momentum] to position only. The pattern of islands of function in such a space holds for protein fold domains in AA sequence space, it holds for sex determination systems and for functionally coherent complex structures in general, system integration is a big deal in engineering to the point where systems engineering is a discipline. For that matter, this extends to cosmological fine tuning. The tree of life analogy — actually, metaphor — is of course Darwin’s sole illustration in Origin, but of course is a commonplace data related structure, e.g. it is reflected in taxonomy of life forms and other systems as Berra mistakenly suggested for vehicles. It definitely has a root at OoL, and implies gradualistic incremental change without limit. Of course, I summarised the frame of the theory and showed that differential reproductive success . . . “preservation of favoured races” is in the subtitle of Origin . . . aka natural selection . . . is not the source of novel information. That is chance variation and the problem you are ducking is the scale of increments for first cell based life and for novel body plans. KF

    PS, the notion, widely circulated 10+ years ago was that non coding DNA was, overwhelmingly junk. ID theorists and thinkers at the time proposed that this was a gross error induced by a bad paradigm, and that much DNA would in fact be useful. It was of course pooh pooed, only to increasingly be vindicated. So, the successful risky prediction is now being dismissed. Just as, the design thinking view of deep order and intelligible organisation of cosmos, biological life etc was a suspect notion, only to be vindicated by the way modern science grew in such soil and has succeeded. Only, we now hear, how dare you point to the Logos principle and linked theology. The pattern of hyperskepticism is plain.

  95. 95
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, that multi-part functionality is dependent on well matched, properly arranged, oriented and coupled entities, is a massive fact of observation, of technology, of life, of thought, of text in language, of mathematics, of computing etc. That you wish to pour scorn on it as a painting the target after the fact fallacy or the like, speaks volumes by way of confession by projection. Remember, the issue pivots here, on there being a credible degree of complex organisation to achieve a functional cell, well established fact. Further, the mere fact of vital organs and functional systems in living creatures, shows the same for body plans, which must unfold from a single cell, e.g. the zygote. KF

  96. 96
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Bob O’H,

    Let’s hope Querius listens to you, being a professional.

  97. 97
    Fred Hickson says:

    PS, the notion, widely circulated 10+ years ago was that non coding DNA was, overwhelmingly junk. ID theorists and thinkers at the time proposed that this was a gross error induced by a bad paradigm, and that much DNA would in fact be useful. It was of course pooh pooed, only to increasingly be vindicated. So, the successful risky prediction is now being dismissed.

    Scientific knowledge advances on a broad front daily. You are welcome to argue who said and thought what and when. The simple fact is there is “junk” DNA in the human genome (not under selective pressure) because it has been identified, as Bob O’H confirms. How much and whether some DNA that we cannot the moment assign any role may turn out to have some function is a subject that scientific research will continue to elucidate.

    On the other hand, I don’t see how the percentage of junk DNA in a genome (which is hugely variable across species – see The Onion Test) relates to “Intelligent Design”. Maybe someone could put a few dates and declarations out for discussion.

  98. 98
    Fred Hickson says:

    The onion test is a way of assessing the validity of an argument for a functional role for non-coding DNA, sometimes called “junk DNA”…

    Proof that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source. 🙂

  99. 99
    jerry says:

    the best “prediction” ID can come up with

    Actually a much better prediction is that gene sequences producing proteins arising from natural processes are extremely rare or non existent.

    So far as I still know, a valid prediction.

  100. 100
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    I just feel the need to point out that people here in general are attacking a strawman when they should be thinking about proposing a genuine, testable, scientific ID hypothesis …

    You couldn’t defend your claim of a strawman as you don’t even understand evolutionary concepts. And ID has scientific hypotheses, unlike evolution by means of blind and mindless processes which only has liars.

  101. 101
    Sandy says:

    @Fred Hickson: have you even read the article linked by BobO’Hara?

    “Knowles cautions that the study doesn’t prove that non-coding DNA has no function. “Those mice were alive, that’s what we know about them,” she says. “We don’t know if they have abnormalities that we don’t test for.”

    Have you searched newer articles than 2004 in the same Nature journal? I guess not because you would have found that the junk concept is discarded and can’t be defended anymore. The advanced scientific methods unavailable a decade ago start to clear the mysticism of darwinists . We can see better in the “black box” of genetics and darwin is obsolete.

  102. 102
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    A penguin flipper’s ancestry is an adaptation to flight.

    Propaganda isn’t science.

    It’s beyond pathetic when Fred uses question-begging as actual arguments.

  103. 103
    ET says:

    Again, anyone claiming that the majority of any genome is junk has to tell us how blind and mindless processes produced histone octamers to spool and organize the genomes into something functional. Absent that all you have is your ignorance.

  104. 104
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    My purpose (heh) is not to defend evolutionary theory and convince you and others here that it is a useful working model that won’t be discarded until a better one turns up.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. And there isn’t any useful models for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Fred is just a dishonest and clueless tool.

  105. 105
    jerry says:

    People are getting hung up on ID being science. ID adds to science definitely. But it is not science.

    ID is better thought of a layer added to science that provides a better explanation for physical phenomena. So it is not in the game of making predictions, but mainly making better conclusions of physical events.

    It does not mean ID cannot make some predictions like the one I pointed to above. But that’s not what it’s mainly about.

    There’s also the obvious prediction Kf makes all the time that no natural processes can produce complex specified functional information. That underlies the predictions about new proteins and DNA itself.

              ID is Science+

    A great way to see ID in action is to read Denton’s new book which takes hundreds of unrelated physical phenomena and show how they all must be present for complex life to exist.

  106. 106
    ET says:

    Technology sometimes uses redundant systems. The extra systems can be removed without affecting the function. Those removed systems were not junk.

  107. 107
    Bob O'H says:

    Sandy @ 101 –

    Have you searched newer articles than 2004 in the same Nature journal? I guess not because you would have found that the junk concept is discarded and can’t be defended anymore.

    I’m sorry, is this the ID junk concept, or the actual one used by biologists, and referenced almost 100 times in Nature since 2004? Including 9 times in 2021.

  108. 108
    JHolo says:

    Jerry: People are getting hung up on ID being science. ID adds to science definitely. But it is not science.

    I tend to agree with this. At most it is a tool that can be used by science, much like a microscope, a spectrophotometer or statistics. But it cannot be called a scientific endeavour until it starts researching the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the design.

  109. 109
    ET says:

    JHolo:

    But it cannot be called a scientific endeavour until it starts researching the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the design.

    That is complete and total ignorance. ID is not about the who or the how. You are obviously just an ignorant troll

  110. 110
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    I’m sorry, is this the ID junk concept, or the actual one used by biologists, and referenced almost 100 times in Nature since 2004? Including 9 times in 2021.

    Please tell us blind and mindless processes knew to produce histone octamers to spool up and organize the junk so that the junk-laden genome would be functional. Or admit that you just don’t know how much of the genome is junk.

  111. 111
    chuckdarwin says:

    Relatd/49

    Jerry Coyne is a secular Jew and emeritus professor of biology at UChicago–why would he be a spokesperson for the Catholic position on evolution?

    You are perhaps confusing him with the late George V. Coyne, a Jesuit priest and former chief astronomer for the Vatican and Director of the Vatican Observatory, who I quoted as critical of ID. Coyne received his PhD in astrophysics from Georgetown and spent his entire career harmonizing science and Catholicism. He has also been critical of Schoenborn for his affiliations with the ID movement.

  112. 112
    jerry says:

    Can we retire the term “junk DNA” since it essentially is a meaningless term.

    Why it is brought up I don’t know. Some here think it will show something but it doesn’t. Some previously thought excess DNA has been shown to have function.

    Big Deal!

    Some previously thought excess DNA appears to have no function.

    Big Deal!

    Let’s ignore comments or parts of comments that mention “junk DNA.”

  113. 113
    jerry says:

    the late George V. Coyne, a Jesuit priest

    Maybe it’s Jesuits that are the problem.

    After all you seem screwed up after an education by them.

    Apparently Rev Coyne believed in natural OOL and evolution which is not a position that is anti ID. It’s just that ID points out that the natural mechanism for OOL and evolution is hidden by the creator. Or at least no one can explain how it happened.

    This was discussed on another thread recently.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-asks-can-claims-about-punctuated-equilibrium-accommodate-the-scientific-data/#comment-754547

    It’s easier denigrating the concept of “junk DNA” than discussing the essential issues.

  114. 114
    JHolo says:

    Jerry@112, again, I find myself agreeing with you. The existence or not of junk DNA has no impact on the validity of either evolution or ID.

  115. 115
  116. 116
    jerry says:

    The existence or not of {forbidden term} has no impact on the validity of either evolution or ID.

    I’ve been saying this for years.

    It’s essentially irrelevant.

    By the way punctuated equilibrium depends on {forbidden term} for how it works. So this group of natural evolutionist believed {forbidden term} had function.

  117. 117
    jerry says:

    But it cannot be called a scientific endeavour until it starts researching the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the design.

    A vapid statement that keeps getting repeated over the years as if it means something.

    Dealt with years ago at another time it was asked. See recent comment

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-asks-can-claims-about-punctuated-equilibrium-accommodate-the-scientific-data/#comment-754336

  118. 118
    JVL says:

    Jerry: A vapid statement that keeps getting repeated over the years as if it means something.

    I’ve been asking for an ID-based research agenda but so far no one has come up with one; granted I don’t always read every single comment here.

    What do you think would be a good ID-based research agenda?

  119. 119
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, there is a growing published literature. That should tell you what research has been going on. KF

  120. 120
    jerry says:

    I don’t always read every single comment here.

    What do you think would be a good ID-based research agenda?

    You are obviously not reading the comments.

  121. 121
    Sandy says:

    Bob O’Hara
    I’m sorry, is this the ID junk concept, or the actual one used by biologists, and referenced almost 100 times in Nature since 2004? Including 9 times in 2021.

    🙂 You post links that you didn’t even read and that make you look like a fool so I’m pretty sure you didn’t read the links from 2021 . Post here how many links from 2021 argue AGAINST functionality of junk DNA . 😆

  122. 122
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus & Jerry:

    I was specifically thinking of a stated and widely accepted general ID research agenda. Something like: what are the top-ten big questions ID proponents should be researching?

    What do you think they are? You can reference previous comments if that would be easiest.

  123. 123
    relatd says:

    Chuckdarwin at 111,

    Where are you going with this? You don’t have to be Catholic to recognize truth. But some believe Richard Dawkins when he says that living things only have the appearance of design but are not designed. He has obviously never seen a flower.

    This is the Jerry Coyne I was referring to: “Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and was a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology.”

    https://ffrf.org/outreach/awards/emperor-has-no-clothes-award/item/12000-jerry-coyne-odd-couple-science-and-religion-can-t-cohabit

    He is wrong.

  124. 124
    Bob O'H says:

    Sandy – I’m not sure what your point is. I responded to your claim that the concept of junk DNA had been discarded. Now you’re asking something different: how many of those pieces that use the concept that you claim has been discarded argue against junk being functional. But I don’t think there’s ever been a doubt that some junk DNA would be functional: the questions have been about how much is functional, what are the functions and what is the non-functional junk DNA doing there.

  125. 125
    Sandy says:

    JVL
    Kairosfocus & Jerry:

    I was specifically thinking of a stated and widely accepted general ID research agenda. Something like: what are the top-ten big questions ID proponents should be researching?

    What do you think they are? You can reference previous comments if that would be easiest.

    If you are very good on maths:
    Biological Information: New Perspectives – Proceedings Of The Symposium
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teExEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
    If not very good with math There is a synopsis that has the same name as book but the subtitle is : A Synopsis and limited Commentary .

  126. 126
    jerry says:

    I say ID is not science but a layer of conclusions used on the findings of science and get asked what should be a ID research program.

    A nonsensical question.

    We can suggest some research programs for science to justify their speculations but they obviously won’t do those because they expect the findings will be negative. It is best they do the studies as opposed to ID because that way they will not be tainted by who did them. But they won’t.

    Remember ID is all for any legitimate research.

    ID is all about probabilities. It applies them to the findings of science.

              ID is Science+
    or actually
              ID is the + in Science+

  127. 127
    Sandy says:

    BobO’Hara
    But I don’t think there’s ever been a doubt that some junk DNA would be functional: the questions have been about how much is functional, what are the functions and what is the non-functional junk DNA doing there.

    How dare you to contradict your bishop Dawkins :https://youtu.be/LTZc7zc-nmU
    Don’t worry we tell nobody that darwinism is a religious belief.

  128. 128
    chuckdarwin says:

    Relatd/123

    This started when I responded to a comment by SA (who is apparently Roman Catholic) that Ken Miller, the prominent Roman Catholic biologist at Brown, didn’t understand (or is confused about) his religion because he is both a strong proponent of Darwinian natural selection and hostile towards ID. SA has since doubled down on that claim.

    I tried to point out two really basic things that shouldn’t be at all controversial. First, it’s not SA’s role to judge Miller’s understanding of Catholicism. That is the Vatican’s role. Second, the Catholic Church long ago communicated that it does not view acceptance of evolution as antithetical to being a practicing Catholic scientist. I also pointed out that there is a general rejection within the Church of ID evidenced by the comments by both Pope Benedict and Rev. George Coyne, one of the Church’s most prominent scientists.

    For some reason you made the statement that, along with Miller, Jerry Coyne was not a spokesman for the Catholic Church on evolution. Earlier my question to you was simply why you would even refence a secular Jewish scientist in the context of Catholicism and evolution. Anyone familiar with ID knows who Jerry Coyne is. But that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s position on evolution. And now you bring up Dawkins who also has nothing to do with the issue. He is an ex-Anglican.

    I’m not here to debate ID vs. evolution, I was responding to a very specific comment by SA about Miller that I thought was unfair and pejorative….

  129. 129
    JVL says:

    Jerry: I say ID is not science but a layer of conclusions used on the findings of science and get asked what should be a ID research program. A nonsensical question.

    Yes, I had forgotten you’d made the comment about ID NOT being science AND that’s why you said I’ve not been paying attention to the comments. I’m just so used to most of the ID proponents saying it is science that I fell back on one of my long-term questions. Anyway, my apologies.

    Is there a way to test the validity of applying the ID conclusions? Or should it only be applicable when there is not a clear, unguided solution?

  130. 130
    JVL says:

    Sandy: Biological Information: New Perspectives – Proceedings Of The Symposium
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teExEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    That is interesting; many of the papers are based on showing why unguided processes are inadequate but still interesting.

    It was published in 2013 which was quite awhile ago now. I would expect things would have moved on by now . . . anything newer?

  131. 131
    Sandy says:

    Jerry
    I say ID is not science

    Except all scientists(evolutionary bioligists included) use the assumption of a function and a goal before they even proceed for any experiment. How do you call that method?

  132. 132
    JVL says:

    Sandy: Except all scientists(evolutionary bioligists included) use the assumption of a function and a goal before they even proceed for any experiment. How do you call that method?

    Sorry to butt in but I think what most scientists do is to look at something that looks like a pattern and then see if they can find a cause or rule which either explains or codifies the phenomenon.

  133. 133
    relatd says:

    Chuckdarwin at 128,

    I understand. The Church knows the difference between faith and science. However, it is not anti-ID. Unless you can show me a specific statement that says otherwise, that is the correct view. The Church’s view. The Church is interested in the truth. And it can combine science and the word of God to provide a complete answer to human origins. It is not the Church’s fault that some, including some Catholics, think otherwise.

  134. 134
    jerry says:

    Except all scientists(evolutionary bioligists included) use the assumption of a function and a goal before they even proceed for any experiment. How do you call that method?

    Do they?

    Why don’t you explain what you mean because I don’t understand what you are saying. All I am aware of is that scientists assume every thing flows from the four forces of physics, mainly the gravitational and electromagnetic forces. And they are seeing how these play out.

    Aside: And they are investigating the possibility of other physical forces.

    Aside2: We know of one force that can intervene and prevent the forces of physics from operating as expected. That is the force of intelligence which seems to be present in animals in varying levels. So it is assumed it was also present in some way in the past before life and and advance life existed.

  135. 135
    jerry says:

    The Church is interested in the truth.

    I’m not sure anyone wants to discuss this here. It is definitely not ID and ID is definitely not religion.

    Was religion seeking truth when it advocated “The Great Chain of Being” and essentially sentenced most of humanity to slavery or serfdom for nearly 2000 years? They weren’t the only ones as all of humanity who ever governed also practiced the same thing.

    The Catholic Church and all other religions should stay out of science and politics since both are constantly changing. Which means they will always be wrong. The Truth they are interested in is something else.

    Aside: I am well aware of the history of science and the role that members of the various religions played in its development.

  136. 136
    JVL says:

    Relatd: It is not the Church’s fault that some, including some Catholics, think otherwise.

    Just out of curiosity . . . when you say ‘the Church’ what do you mean? A particular organisation or denomination or . . . ??

  137. 137
    Sandy says:

    JVL
    It was published in 2013 which was quite awhile ago now. I would expect things would have moved on by now . . . anything newer?

    Not true, because it’s about the principles of functional information in biology that won’t change with new discoveries( a new unknown process or system,etc.) .Anyway compared with Darwin novels I guess is pretty actual.

  138. 138
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    two really basic things that shouldn’t be at all controversial

    I think they’re highly controversial. For example, here’s what Richard Dawkins said about Fr. George Coyne, S.J. after he interviewed him:

    [Dawkins] has been criticised for focusing on a fundamentalist version of religion and ignoring more nuanced varieties. In Brief Candle in the Dark he admits to finding debates with moderate religionists frustrating. “They’re often very nice people with whom I have delightful conversations,” he says. Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury, is “almost impossible to argue with because he’s just so nice, and Fr George Coyne, who was the head of the Vatican Observatory, is a highly intelligent scientist. He seemed to me to be pretty much an atheist and to be agreeing with everything I said.”

    In this rare case, I’ll agree with Dawkins and I found the interview to be embarrassing. But aside from that, I’m sure you’ll agree that if Fr. Coyne seemed to Dawkins “to be pretty much an atheist” – then that’s pretty controversial. There’s a complex history and relationship that the Holy See has tried to build with modern science. Much of this goes back to Teihard de Chardin’s attempt to be a Catholic-Darwinist, and that was not successful either.
    But yes, you’re certainly right that I don’t have the authority to condemn anyone or to certify them in the Catholic Faith – as you say, that’s the Vatican’s role. There’s been a very extreme level of tolerance for mistakes and errors over the past 40 years, so situations like a Jesuit who publicly appears to be an atheist are usually not corrected even until years after death.
    On that note, I never liked Fr. Coyne but it’s a good reminder that I need to pray for his soul. I am not free to write-off my enemies and am called to care for them. I hope the best for Fr. Coyne – may God see the good he tried to do in his years as a Jesuit.
    As for Ken Miller, I posted some of his pubic record. Again, you’re right, it’s not my position to make official judgements on one’s orthdoxy, but I have to preserve my faith from all sorts of evils, so I have the responsibility for that. I posted the problems with Ken Miller’s views – and again, I find them highly controversial.
    Is the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the virgin birth (and appearance of Gabriel with message), the resurrection of Lazarus, the healing of lame, blind, deaf … the hundreds of miracles by fellow-Jesuit St. Francis Xavier – is any of that “evidence of an Intelligent Design present in the world and in nature”. Or did it all happen by mutations and selection?
    That’s the question I have for Ken Miller and I would have for Fr. Coyne if he was still alive and I had the opportunity.
    I know the typical answers I get from Catholic-Darwinists on these things. It’s a mess. But in my view, ID is one tremendous means for people like that to sort things out. You either have the Catholic Faith or you don’t. If you’re a Jesuit, you have to believe ID evidence. You can’t deny it.

  139. 139
    relatd says:

    JVL at 136,

    What do you think I mean? The Church always means the Catholic Church which is, and has been, painted by some as the enemy of science – actually, the enemy of evolution.

    I’ll just add that anyone who thinks living things appeared all by themselves are not telling the truth.

  140. 140
    Silver Asiatic says:

    relatd

    The Church knows the difference between faith and science. However, it is not anti-ID. Unless you can show me a specific statement that says otherwise, that is the correct view.

    That is true. The document of Vatican I condemns the idea that it is not possible to know the existence of God by observation of nature. That’s the ancient teaching going back to the founding of the Church in St. Paul’s epistle – and to the proto-Church in the Wisdom books.

  141. 141
    Silver Asiatic says:

    relatd

    The Church always means the Catholic Church which is, and has been, painted by some as the enemy of science – actually, the enemy of evolution.

    True. In no way is the Holy Church an enemy of God’s work of creation – and that’s what science is, just the study of creation. Theistic evolution is not condemned, even though to me it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  142. 142
    relatd says:

    SA at 141,

    After looking at ‘theistic evolution,’ my question is: Where is the theistic part? Or is there none? Is the word, not name, God just tacked on to confuse people?

  143. 143
    JVL says:

    Relatd: What do you think I mean? The Church always means the Catholic Church which is, and has been, painted by some as the enemy of science – actually, the enemy of evolution.

    I was just checking; I wanted to be sure I put your comments into the correct context.

  144. 144
    jerry says:

    Here we go again!

    I ask again, do people read? Not on this site apparently. They never answer the obvious questions. My guess on purpose.

    Also when ID becomes the accepted interpretation of science, be prepared for the really big food fight as factions within ID duke it out.

    It goes off/jerks too often

    Yes, that is what logic will do if you use it.

  145. 145
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Potentially Alive 830-Million-Year-Old Organisms Found Trapped in Ancient Rock
    https://www.sciencealert.com/830-million-year-old-microorganisms-found-trapped-in-australian-rock/amp
    An incredible discovery has just revealed a potential new source for understanding life on ancient Earth.
    A team of geologists has just discovered tiny remnants of prokaryotic and algal life – trapped inside crystals of halite dating back to 830 million years ago.

    Non-evolutionary stasis.
    The previous record was 250 million years old bacteria.

  146. 146
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I’ve been asking for an ID-based research agenda but so far no one has come up with one; granted I don’t always read every single comment here.

    And I have told you many times. So, clearly you are just willfully ignorant.

  147. 147
    relatd says:

    JVL at 143,

    Thank you. I appreciate it.

    Jerry at 144,

    You should have that knee checked. It goes off/jerks too often… 🙂

  148. 148
    JVL says:

    Sandy: Biological Information: New Perspectives – Proceedings Of The Symposium
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teExEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    In one of the papers reproduced in the linked book (Biological Information — What is it? by Werner Gitt, et al) I found the following:

    But what do we mean by the term “biological information”? We suggest that, at the present moment, it cannot be unambiguously defined.

    They then go on to discuss why it would be useful to be able to lock down the idea of biological information.

    Do you think progress has been made regarding that situation? And do you agree with the idea that, at the time, the term ‘biological information’ was not well defined?

  149. 149
    Silver Asiatic says:

    relatd

    Where is the theistic part? Or is there none? Is the word, not name, God just tacked on to confuse people?

    Good questions. I think your last one is correct – but not to confuse people. God is just tacked on there because they want to keep everything the Darwinists have to say. That’s Fr. Coyne’s view. Darwinism is supposedly 100% correct, except that God made it all look that way.
    That’s certainly irrefutable, but as Dawkins says when interviewing Fr. Coyne: that makes God seem like He’s unessential to anything.
    But that’s the theistic evolutionary approach. In fact, Ken Miller says that God didn’t even know what evolution would produce.

  150. 150
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    They then go on to discuss why it would be useful to be able to lock down the idea of biological information.

    You were demanding a research project so I think it would be courteous to acknowledge that Sandy provided one.

  151. 151
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: You were demanding a research project so I think it would be courteous to acknowledge that Sandy provided one.

    I was asking for a research agenda and this collection of papers is helpful. I am taking it seriously, a sign of respect, by asking questions about some of the material.

    I was a bit surprised to discover that in 2011 (when the symposium occurred) the notion of ‘biological information’ was considered ambiguous by some of the participants. I didn’t think that was the case.

    What do you think?

  152. 152
    relatd says:

    SA at 149,

    It’s time to throw out ‘theistic evolution,’ It says nothing of value and explains nothing, meaning not the Catholic Church’s position. It’s not appropriate to say “God made it look that way.” God does not deceive.

    Ken Miller seems to think that defending science is first in importance, and that faith is somewhere over there. Its role – the role of God – vague and undefined.

    Romans 1:20

    English Standard Version
    For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  153. 153
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    First of all, good question and thanks for reading that paper and extracting that statement.
    I was surprised also, but I think they’re saying that the ambiguity comes from the fact that we haven’t identified all the categories of biological information yet. So, they’re just defining what we know and that’s not complete – and they’re using definitions from information theory as applied to biology.
    Maybe they were being too cautious.

  154. 154
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Relatd – I fully agree with you. But most of our co-religionists do not agree so it’s a very big challenge to try to convince them to just get rid of theistic evolution. As you say, they just want to make it sound good and to defend atheistic-science. People are afraid of the Galileo affair and they also don’t want to be called Bible-fundamentalists.

  155. 155
    relatd says:

    Galileo? Again? Everyone has this picture of Galileo being tortured or mistreated? You know what happened? Galileo was out of control. He was saying ‘I proved it! I proved it!’ And the Church was saying: “Galileo, calm down. All the data isn’t in yet, and you’re jumping the gun.” So the Church put him under house arrest.

    https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy

  156. 156
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: I was surprised also, but I think they’re saying that the ambiguity comes from the fact that we haven’t identified all the categories of biological information yet. So, they’re just defining what we know and that’s not complete – and they’re using definitions from information theory as applied to biology.
    Maybe they were being too cautious.

    Maybe. That is a common reaction among scientists: they don’t always like to push the boat out until they are absolutely sure.

    I was also intrigued by this statement:

    Towards this goal we should begin by defining a definition: a description or explanation of a word or thing by its attributes, properties or relations that distinguishes it from all other entities.

    I’m not sure that is a workable definition of a definition. What do you think?

  157. 157
    Sandy says:

    JVL
    I think what most scientists do is to look at something that looks like a pattern

    🙂 They look for meaning: goal,function . Your explanations with “pattern” are like FredHicks explanations .He explains the code of cell (detecting errors /repairing DNA) by chemical reactions.

  158. 158
    ET says:

    Intelligent Design’s concepts with respect to biological evolution have proven useful in the form of genetic algorithms. So, there’s that. And that, alone, is more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes has.

  159. 159
    ET says:

    Information, with respect to biology, was defined by Crick:

    Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

    And, we also have:

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Dembski pg 148 “No Free Lunch”

    Decades AFTER all of this has been defined and discussed and it is beyond pathetic that there are those who still try to use their ignorance as an argument.

  160. 160
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, give us a break, the only thing different about biological information is that it is in cell based life forms. Information is information, codes are codes, info content by compact description is info also. Is it THAT hard to acknowledge that DNA has been chemically extended by synthesis of further bases and that it has been used to digitally encode, even movies? Why then is it that hard to notice that there is a code for protein synthesis, with about 24 dialects? Is this confession by insistent denial? KF

  161. 161
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I’m not sure that is a workable definition of a definition. What do you think?

    In logical terms, a definition is an application of the Law of Identity.
    So when we define something, we separate it from other things – using comparison. We look at the attributes and properties of the thing and see what makes it a unique identity.
    So, as Aristotle would say “man is an animal”. But that definition doesn’t separate humans – so we look at the attributes and we come up with “man is a rational animal”.
    With biological information, all the definitions we already have for information – as with Shannon information as the probability increases the information content decreases — and also with the complexity measures. Functional Complex Specified Information (FCSI)
    The difference will be that biological information is found in biological systems.

  162. 162
    JVL says:

    ET: Decades AFTER all of this has been defined and discussed and it is beyond pathetic that there are those who still try to use their ignorance as an argument.

    I gave a quote from an ID publication based on a 2011 symposium wherein the author said: But what do we mean by the term “biological information”? We suggest that, at the present moment, it cannot be unambiguously defined.

    I didn’t make that up. I got it right from the publication.

    So, who are you complaining about?

  163. 163
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: In logical terms, a definition is an application of the Law of Identity.
    So when we define something, we separate it from other things – using comparison. We look at the attributes and properties of the thing and see what makes it a unique identity.
    So, as Aristotle would say “man is an animal”. But that definition doesn’t separate humans – so we look at the attributes and we come up with “man is a rational animal”.
    With biological information, all the definitions we already have for information – as with Shannon information as the probability increases the information content decreases — and also with the complexity measures. Functional Complex Specified Information (FCSI)
    The difference will be that biological information is found in biological systems.

    So, was that a workable definition of a definition? You seem to just be waffling about. What is ‘biological information’? Can you define it? The participants in this particular symposium thought it was an important issue? Has the field progressed since then?

  164. 164
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, back in 4th form, the definition of a definition: a precise statement describing a quantity or unit. SA is right that it is an application of the law of identity, i.e. that A is itself i/l/o core characteristics that identify and distinguish it from what is not A. If we are down to debating definitions of definitions, it seems to me the objections are deep into hyperskepticism. In the case of biological information the distinction is that it is information found in cell based life forms, with DNA as capital example. For information, refer to the massive facts of this information age. And BTW, going way back, a 6500 CT reel exhibits implicit info in the specificity of parts, their arrangement and coupling towards function as a rather good fishing reel. Concrete example that aids concept formation, for the willing. Which slowly swims into focus . . . KF

  165. 165
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, Glossary under resources tab, and that’s about a decade back: “Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”” Of course there is more but that is a baseline, noting information can be implicit in organisation of a structure and is reducible to a specification in a description language. Where AutoCAD etc are illustrative for 3-d entities. This is a start point. And hyperskepticism which tries to undermine or deny warranted knowledge is a resort to secondary ignorance, that which unduly doubts because somewhere else there is a crooked yardstick unduly accepted and now being defended.

  166. 166
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL- I just provided two quotes that prove your reference is wrong, unless that author is discussing the information that determines biological form.

  167. 167
    Querius says:

    Bob O’H @93,

    Oh no! Ohno didn’t suggest “junk” DNA was useless.
    I guess it’s par for the course that the best “prediction” ID can come up with is based on ignorance, and predicting something after the fact.

    I guess it’s also par for the course when someone makes fun of the name of a eminent researcher’s Japanese name.

    Correct regarding Dr. Susumu Ohno’s 1972 paper, titled “So Much ‘Junk’ DNA in Our Genome.” Incidentally, he’s credited with coining the term.

    In his paper, which I’ve read multiple times over the years, he speculates on a number of possible benefits of “unutilized base sequences.”

    So yes, my hypothesis is that all “junk DNA” has a function, though likely to have a variety of different functions.

    – The ID position is the presumption of intelligent design (although taking no position on its origin), thus likely to have a function.

    – The Darwinist presumption is that biological structures and features are all due to random mutation and thus likely NOT to have a function.

    Dr. Ohno’s informed speculations are still interesting, one of which is that it’s a record of historical vestiges of the evolutionary process. This raises the possibility that some DNA might dynamically get recycled into active genes. Others have speculated that “junk” DNA serves as a sort of a genetic scratch pad. Dr. Ohno also notes the massive disparity in genomes of various organisms.

    Of course, according to Darwinism, evolution occurs in tiny increments to phenotypes (limited to a certain maximum rate as noted by Haldane). Surely these increments would be traceable in the genomes of taxonomically close organisms, right?

    -Q

  168. 168
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus,

    P.S. Loved the “Alison Alison” news reports! They put a smile on my face.

    -Q

  169. 169
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Querius,

    You wouldn’t be moving goalposts would you?

    It is a legitimate question to consider genomic sequences and try to answer the questions: what does this bit do? what is the homology? is it under selection? These questions have an answer already for some sections and work is in progress.

    As others have said, adding a label of “junk” or not, especially when the term is vague and abused, makes no difference to research. Your proffering “all DNA will turn out to have function – some/any function” doesn’t rise to the lowest bar of a hypothesis.

  170. 170
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @169,

    Sorry, but why don’t you first respond to

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/genetic-drift/

    Which starts out:

    Genetic drift is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes and other genetic elements of the next generation will be those of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations — there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

    If you’re planning to revert back to Darwinism, please bone up on the current thinking.

    -Q

  171. 171
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF

    I see you continue to insist the model is the territory. Your fishing reel is poor analogy. At the scale of atoms and molecules, can we identify, say, an individual water molecule and keep track of it. Your fishing reel and it’s bits are categories with individual examples being unique and identifiably different if we use accurate methods and notwithstanding precision manufacture. Is the oil in the bearings part of the reel? If you cast a line, where is the boundary between reel and line?

    These category choices are human and arbitrary. All models are wrong; some are useful.

  172. 172
    ET says:

    Is there even a model for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes?

    Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. What does the opposition have beyond denying reality?

  173. 173
    Fred Hickson says:

    Is there even a model for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes?

    Nope. The evolutionary model has the non-random element of selection resulting from differential reproductive success guided by the niche environment.

    I’m thinking of getting a tattoo.

    I see emojis are restricted. Imagine “slightly-pained upward roll of the eyes”.

  174. 174
    ET says:

    Earth to Fred- Evolution and natural selection are said to be blind, mindless and purposeless. The fact that every time you read that you have to change it and interject your ignorance of natural selection, just proves that you are willfully ignorant and unable to learn.

    Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is blind, mindless and without any goals. Even a loss of function can be beneficial. There isn’t any evidence for any guidance from the environment.

    38 Nobel Laureates said:

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    Unguided, Fred.

    Jerry Coyne says that Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

    So stop with your infantile games, Fred.

    You don’t need emojis, Fred. Get an education.

  175. 175
    ET says:

    OK, so at least Fred admits that there isn’t any model for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. But it’s funny, in a sad way, that Fred doesn’t understand the concept of natural selection.

  176. 176
    Querius says:

    ET @174, 175,

    Yeah, exactly. The problem is that he’s not in agreement with the current thinking in Darwinian evolution. Thus, he has the double challenge of arguing against the accepted paradigm of random processes together with mistaken ideas about genetic drift and yet rejects the design paradigm while advocating that the source of design is COMPLETELY within the environment.

    If that’s truly the case, why won’t my 10-speed evolve into a motorcycle when I ride it uphill a lot? The answer is that my 10-speed doesn’t have a designed capacity to respond to the riding environment.

    -Q

  177. 177
    Fred Hickson says:

    Ten speed bicycles now? What about your hypothesis? Can you make it any less vague?

  178. 178
    Fred Hickson says:

    Thus, he has the double challenge of arguing against the accepted paradigm of random processes together with mistaken ideas about genetic drift and yet rejects the design paradigm while advocating that the source of design is COMPLETELY within the environment.

    You need to find me anyone in the mainstream who argues that solely random processes can lead to adaptations to avoid my charge of strawmanning.

  179. 179
    Fred Hickson says:

    *chuckles*

    Googling got me this:

    https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/112/2/287/2415796

    Something for Upright Biped to ponder. Adaptive semiotics!

  180. 180
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @178,

    LOL. You gotta be kidding! Not to mention the other links you were provided, see ET’s comment @174. It’s the part where he wrote

    38 Nobel Laureates said:

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    The quote I provided you from a resource web page from the University of California at Berkeley reads

    Genetic drift is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes and other genetic elements of the next generation will be those of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations — there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

    But @85, you’d typed with your own two fingers the following:

    I haven’t mentioned genetic drift. It happens that in small populations over time will lose diversity as alleles competing at a locus not under selection are lost are lost to fixation. But I don’t find the phenomenon of drift signifiant except to make space for new variation.

    https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?t=84

    After you contact the University of California Museum of Paleontology (https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/) informing them of their mistakes, please let us know how they respond.

    -Q

  181. 181
    Fred Hickson says:

    Oh and I read Jerry Coyne’s 2011 blog post, ET. The thrust of it is to do with choice of words when accommodating science with both atheism and theism. There’s not much for me to disagree with on science in that article. I doubt Professor Coyne claims evolutionary processes are purely random. Of course he could speak for himself on that. Do you want to check with him?

  182. 182
    Fred Hickson says:

    Sure genetic drift happens, Querius. Population geneticist Joe Felsenstein uses the analogy of Brownian motion, an effect that is unavoidable but directionless. But without the non-random input of selection of phenotypes, net adaptive change in a niche environment will not happen.

    “Blind and mindless” is just window dressing for dramatic effect.

  183. 183
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, as we both know, a fishing reel instantiates FSCO/I, similarly the process flow network of an oil refinery, similarly the text of your objecting comment, similarly biological body plans, similarly the process-flow network for cellular metabolism, similarly the coded algorithmic information used in protein synthesis. Where, as I will point out just below, 50 years before Darwin, in ch 2 Paley drew out the point that self replication was an additional capacity manifesting FSCO/I, though he did not know the term. He has been turned into a strawman target. Besides, in the first instance the issue is to get to self replication through blind physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Dismissal by hyperskeptically suggested disanalogy fails and reflects just how cogent the point is. KF

    PS, anticipating the von Neumann kinematic self replicator by 150 years, here is Paley’s ch 2 on the self-replicating watch. This alone exposes a grand strawman fallacy in many claims of disanalogy. Where, in fact we are looking at instantiation of a common characteristic, much as things that come in pairs reflect in common twoness.

    I clip:

    Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to

    [–> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, “stickiness” of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]

    all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [–> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] — the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [–> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . .

    The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art

    [–> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic “supernatural”) vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]

    . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [–> i.e. design].

    . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch
    cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was.
    What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [–> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . .

    Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was.

    Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [–> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before.

    Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. “Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . ,

    And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other’s movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]

    It is high time that this longstanding strawman fallacy in arguments against inference to design was corrected. This has been pointed out in your presence previously.

    PPS, this and similar exchanges imply the vital importance of respect for duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness etc. We are not merely playing empty and pointless rhetorical debate games for entertainment. The breakdown of responsible reason we are seeing is fraught with sobering consequences for civilisation. See Plato’s parable of the ship of state.

  184. 184
    Fred Hickson says:

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    is correct as far as it goes. Better to have made clear that natural selection is non-random rather than assuming it (allowing Querius to beat that strawman).

  185. 185
    Fred Hickson says:

    Genetic drift is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes and other genetic elements of the next generation will be those of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations — there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

    A bit gushy but what am I supposed to take exception to? Drift is always there but the effect is insignificant in large populations under strong selection. Find me someone in the mainstream who promotes drift as adaptive and I’ll eat my hat.

  186. 186
  187. 187
    Fred Hickson says:

    You do you, Kairosfocus. It’s pointless trying to discuss biology with you. Your agenda does not seem to have anything to do with biology.

  188. 188
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, natural selection is a dynamic-stochastic process and is of significantly random character. That is, one is shifting odds relative to present state of environment so one population becomes Darwin’s favoured race. Your tendency to emptily dismiss what does not fit your favoured orthodoxy is duly noted. You need to ponder the underlying Dawkinsian attitude to objectors that you perhaps inadvertently evoke: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. That invited contempt is indefensible. KF

  189. 189
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, it becomes increasingly clear that you deploy hyperskepticism to defend your orthodoxy. From 1948 to 1953 on then through the course of winning several Nobel Prizes across decades, it became absolutely clear that in the heart of the cell is a digital, 4-state per glyph information symbol based system. This is expressed through the use of string data structures using D/RNA and their role in protein synthesis. We see coded algorithms and molecular nanotech execution machinery, as is laid out in outline in the op here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ — thus, language and text using alphanumeric characters [a point made by Crick in his 1953 letter to his son] expressing algorithms. The standard form of the code even has three stop codes in 64 three character codons. We thus see informational phenomena that properly found an inference to intelligently directed configuration as best explanation. We also find here an analogy to finding texts of tax receipts in a tell in Mesopotamia. A real world analogy [which makes Paley’s thought exercises on walking across a heath highly cogent], one pointing onward to history as the discipline that analysis and reports the past as informed in key part by text. Chapter zero of world history must now reckon with the import of this text. Text antecedent to cell based life on earth found in a cosmos exhibiting fine tuning. KF

  190. 190
    Fred Hickson says:

    With your scatter gun approach, I find it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff (see, I can mix my metaphors with the best of ’em). What is it you are attacking and what are you defending?

    Just to clarify, I have no religious argument to make here. Dawkins personal religious views (as far as I’ve noticed) are somewhat naive.

    I’m keeping an eye out for Upright Biped hoping he will engage with his semiotic theory and find myself chipping in when the misrepresentation of mainstream biology gets a bit much for me.

    And I’m still hoping someone will offer a genuinely scientific testable hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”.

  191. 191
    Sandy says:

    Darwinists defend their theory with 3 unscientific beliefs:
    1. believing that life complexity emerged by chance-no scientific evidence.
    2.as a consequence of believing 1 follows another belief :that a mutation must be random (while an environmental change trigger whole populations to change in few generations ??- definitely this is not the result of random mutations)
    3.believing that the “necessity” create (at will ) code and code create a useful function -by a mechanism that is unknown but if belief 1. is true then 3. follows naturally. 🙂

  192. 192
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, doubling down on the insinuation of no testable ID hypothesis despite many corrections that point to such simply tells us you insistently speak with disregard to truth, reason, warrant, responsibility, fair mindedness. Therefore you show yourself to be of negative credibility. KF

  193. 193
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, for those who are more amenable to duties to truth, reason etc, let’s clip the four ID postulates as were summarised from UD’s resources tab:

    [First, Evidence-backed Programmatic Postulate:] certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [–> explicit reference to logic of abductive reasoning] by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

    [2nd, Operational Postulate:] Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    [3rd, Empirical Warrant/Point of test or potential falsification postulate:] An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

    [Evidence Corollary:] Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

    [4th, Designs and Signs Postulate:] as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such agents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. [–> definition of design, note, abductive inference from observed sign to signified cause.]

    It is patent from these that a credible observation of FSCO/I coming about by undirected, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity would shatter the core ID theses. Many attempts have been made and — especially through evolutionary computing, successes have been claimed. However, from Weasel on, these sims invariably inject active information, i.e. work by design. Random document generation is a factor of 10^100 short of the low end FSCO/I threshold, a config space of 3.27*10^150 possibilities. Meanwhile, trillions of cases of origin of FSCO/I have been directly observed, uniformly by design. On cosmological scale, finetuning is very evident. And more. Objectors are in denial driven by hyperskepticism in defence of their orthodoxy. Just on discovery of coded algorithms in the cell, design should have been blatantly obvious by the 1970’s. It seems one area for research and analysis is why such deeply entrenched resistance to abundant warrant. KF

  194. 194
    jerry says:

    I have a question, actually two questions. But first background.

    The fine tuning of the universe is so incredibly unlikely that it would take an extremely high intelligence to create it just so. And this fine tuning must have an objective.

    Could this creator also create initial conditions that would lead to life and its complex code?

    Could this creator also hide these initial conditions?

    ID would have to say yes to both?

    Extend this reasoning to complex life. And the answer is still yes for ID.

    So to use the complexity of life as proof of an intelligence intervening has some implications that ID won’t address.

    Aside: I personally believe that there have been interventions by some intelligence in the formation of life and complex life. But one has to address the implications of this which I rarely see here if at all.

    Aside2: I can imagine initial conditions leading to a massive object colliding with a medium size new planet of a solar system so that most of this massive object formed a satellite around this new planet which still affects it a few billion years later.

    Aside3: anyone using a mechanism natural for Evolution is committing the fallacy of begging the question.

    could, would, did are three very different things

    You didn’t address anything I said.

  195. 195
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, could, would, did are three very different things. The evidences of design are manifold and manifest; save, to those taught to blunt their force through crooked yardstick principles. KF

  196. 196
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    It’s pointless trying to discuss biology with you.

    Nice projection! You appear to be ignorant of biology and evolution.

  197. 197
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Better to have made clear that natural selection is non-random rather than assuming it

    Wow. Again, for the learning impaired-> natural selection is non-random in a trivial sense in that not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated.

    What part of that are you too stupid to understand, Fred?

  198. 198
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:
    I doubt Professor Coyne claims evolutionary processes are purely random.
    Are you just a complete idiot? No one said anything about “random”. What is wrong with you?

    EVOLUTION IS SAID TO PROCEED VIA BLIND, MINDLESS and PURPOSELESS PROCESSES. PERIOD.

    That Fred can’t get that through his thick skull just exposes its agenda of obfuscation and dishonesty.

  199. 199
    asauber says:

    Yeah, Fred is a Troll. It has no interest in having an actual discussion.

    Andrew

  200. 200
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Googling got me this:

    https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/112/2/287/2415796

    Something for Upright Biped to ponder. Adaptive semiotics!

    LoL! It’s a given that Fred didn’t read the paper as it doesn’t have anything to do with Upright Biped’s arguments.

  201. 201
    Fred Hickson says:

    …natural selection is non-random in a trivial sense in that not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated.

    Well, then we only disagree on “trivial”. That is progress.

  202. 202
    ET says:

    How is it not trivial, Fred? From Ernst Mayr, in “What Evolution Is”:

    Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

    By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

    Very trivial and shifting. Which is why beneficial mutations have such a difficult time of becoming fixed.

    Natural selection has never been demonstrated to be the designer mimic that Darwin envisioned.

    Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

  203. 203
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A Wikipedia confession:

    In common parlance, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or “trials”) is predictable.[note 1] For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will tend to occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is not haphazardness; it is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome. Randomness applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

    The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. Random variables can appear in random sequences. A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in probability theory and the various applications of randomness.

    Random does not require a flat distribution. KF

  204. 204
    Viola Lee says:

    And what exactly was “confessed”?

    And whoever said randomness required a flat distribution?

  205. 205
    Bob O'H says:

    Querius @ 167 –

    So yes, my hypothesis is that all “junk DNA” has a function, though likely to have a variety of different functions.

    Thanks, that helps. To be clear – do you mean a function for the organism, or would you include “selfish genetic elements” whose sole function is to replicate themselves, without providing any function for the organism?

    – The ID position is the presumption of intelligent design (although taking no position on its origin), thus likely to have a function.

    – The Darwinist presumption is that biological structures and features are all due to random mutation and thus likely NOT to have a function.

    This is most certainly NOT the position of evolutionary biology.

  206. 206
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, look above at the implications of suggestions made in the thread. And, some do make that assertion out there. In this case, artificial selection we can indeed take as purposive and effectively non random being intelligent. However, differential reproductive success held to be responsible for “preservation of favoured races” (thus extinction of the less favoured as we can see from Darwin’s second key book where he explicitly ties natural selection to such extinction) is dynamic-stochastic and has a significant random or chance or stochastic component so cannot be held non random; think here, playing a game against nature with a range of possible states of nature that are partly mechanically necessary and partly stochastic. This is distinct from chaotic, which may attach to certain population dynamics even ignoring the stochastic element once strange attractors are involved in the phase space. KF

  207. 207
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, we have been playing a game against nature here since 1995. Not all have survived the volcano experience. Similarly, we see another one playing out with CV 19 now in our worst surge. We just lost a young lady I watched grow up.

  208. 208
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, some hold randomness a fiction, too.

  209. 209
    jerry says:

    Round and round we go never getting anywhere.

    I thought we agreed that there is no such thing as random. We just use random to indicate that we can not figure out the forces that produced a specific event.

    some hold randomness a fiction, too.

    Right on cue as I typed my comment.

    And natural selection is self refuting as a mechanism for Evolution. It is limited to genetics and even there is limited to outcomes that will not affect the status of the ecology. Otherwise, natural selection would lead to the destruction of the species even within genetics.

    So those who advocate for naturalized Evolution must find another mechanism than natural selection.

    Then there is the issue that DNA has nothing to do with Evolution and the mechanism for complex change or the building of body plans must lie elsewhere.

    But as said, round and round we go, getting nowhere.

  210. 210
    asauber says:

    Jerry,

    It would be interesting for one of the Evolutionists commenting here to engage in a discussion of what the limitations of Evolution are. I’m under the impression that they deliberately avoid such a discussion because it makes them look bad. Clearly there are limitations. Let’s go over them. What’s there to be afraid of?

    Andrew

  211. 211
    jerry says:

    What’s there to be afraid of

    I mention two.

    One it is self refuting. That is to enact significant change it would enable the species to eliminate the rest of the ecology and thus, eliminate itself.

    Second it cannot explain change of body plans. Once the body plan changes, the new species is in an ecology and by definition it must be limited for that ecology to persist and for the species to persist.

  212. 212
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, you exemplify my point. I start from temperature as a measure of average random kinetic energy per degree of freedom for microparticles, especially once we begin to reckon further with quantum phenomena following probabilistic distributions internally and as observable e.g. RA decay. I suggest quantum phenomena give every index of being random. A second form is when two uncorrelated deterministic phenomena clash, such as phone line codes and surnames; that was an old trick to get effectively random digits. I suggest there is no correlation between the value of pi and the decimal number system so as we string out digits of pi they are effectively a good random distribution mimic. Our phone numbers, likely, can be found in a sufficiently deep string of digits of pi. Place a tray of elastic marbles and walls, then agitate, soon there will be a distribution untraceable to initial conditions. KF

  213. 213
    Fred Hickson says:

    Who do you think you agreed with, Jerry? Some very odd assertions in your comment #209 that contain preconceptions that you haven’t justified. No big deal – it’s par for the course here but it’s not likely to win people to your point of view.

  214. 214
    ET says:

    I see that Fred is still too afraid to actually make a case. Only cowards throw out accusations and don’t support them, Fred.

  215. 215
    jerry says:

    I suggest quantum phenomena give every index of being random.

    Are you positing a fifth force that you do not understand as the cause of something that looks like it is random.

    I personally keep away from quantum phenomena because I have seen too many supposedly smart people who say they don’t understand it. But apparently they don’t come here to learn the truth.

    I will try to get more up to speed on what is known about quantum phenomena.

  216. 216
    Silver Asiatic says:

    That is to enact significant change it would enable the species to eliminate the rest of the ecology and thus, eliminate itself.

    What this means is that there is no limit to what competition and the mindless drive for survival will do. A blind process cannot have any foresight to the future, so the mindless organism will eat everything it has today. It can’t save anything since there is no tomorrow and it doesn’t care about tomorrow.
    This refutes the supposed evolution of cooperation and altruism, since the blind mechanism will wipe out all competition as well as all food sources. Cannibalism is the easiest way to get nutrition.
    In yesterday’s report of the 850 yr old bacteria it is said that it survived by eating its own dead organisms, but if there’s no other food source it will not wait around for its progeny to die but simply turn against each other.
    The serendipitous story of Darwin will say that only the smartest organisms survived – and those were the ones that figured out that you shouldn’t totally destroy your environment but to save some food for future generations because that way everyone can live in perfect harmony just the way evolution wanted everyone to be.

  217. 217
    Silver Asiatic says:

    from the Ernst Mayr, in “What Evolution Is” quote above:

    This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

    Each year’s environmental conditions create a different niche. The body plan was developed for specific environmental conditions, but those conditions change randomly and continually based on changing temperature, humidity, geography, presence of competition, introduction of new species, increase and decline of populations, introduction of disease and toxins, fires, floods, earthquakes.

  218. 218
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF,

    Similarly, we see another one playing out with CV 19 now in our worst surge. We just lost a young lady I watched grow up.

    Sorry to hear that, KF. What is the vaccination rate on Montserrat currently? Many of my friends and acquaintances have succumbed to COVID recently but, thanks to vaccination, all have only had mild symptoms and have fully recovered. I’m getting a fourth booster tomorrow.

  219. 219
    asauber says:

    Like I’ve been saying for years, the Evolutionists who comment here are not interested in a serious examination of evidence, they are just here to oppose ID, such that they can’t entertain a single instance of conflicting information about anything related to the Grand Evolution Narrative. It’s Not Science at it’s most pathetic.

    Andrew

  220. 220
    JHolo says:

    FH@218, similarly, much of my family contracted COVID over the last few weeks but thanks to their vaccination their symptoms were no worse that a two day cold.

  221. 221
    ET says:

    Unbelievable. COVID-19 is easily beaten with OTC supplements. The bulk of covid deaths involve people who are deficient in one or more essential nutrients such as vitamin D and zinc. Zinc has been shown to prevent the virus from replicating.

  222. 222
    Fred Hickson says:

    SA

    Each year’s environmental conditions create a different niche. The body plan was developed for specific environmental conditions, but those conditions change randomly and continually based on changing temperature, humidity, geography, presence of competition, introduction of new species, increase and decline of populations, introduction of disease and toxins, fires, floods, earthquakes.

    Well sure, except I wonder whether climate change, say, is truly random. God’s hand behind it all? Humans fuelling their own destruction by causing carbon dioxide levels (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere to mount seemingly inexorably?

  223. 223
    ET says:

    CO2 does not control the climate. But added CO2 is causing the planet to become greener. The only destruction is caused by clueless climate alarmists.

  224. 224
    Viola Lee says:

    Jerry writes, “I thought we agreed that there is no such thing as random. We just use random to indicate that we can not figure out the forces that produced a specific event.”

    My understanding is that in respect to evolution a mutation is random in the sense that the cause of the mutation, whatever it may be, is not causally connected to the eventual effect of the mutation on the organism. That is different than just saying that we call something is random because we don’t know what caused it. I don’t think that is simply what random means.

    Look here to get a sense of the complexity of the concept.

  225. 225
    asauber says:

    I’m shocked that Fred is Trollin about Climate Change.

    What’s next, more money for worthless pubic education?

    Andrew

  226. 226
    Fred Hickson says:

    It would be interesting for one of the Evolutionists commenting here to engage in a discussion of what the limitations of Evolution are.

    OK. One limit is there is no evolutionary pathway to a multicellular organism using wheels.

    I’m under the impression that they deliberately avoid such a discussion because it makes them look bad. Clearly there are limitations. Let’s go over them. What’s there to be afraid of?

    l have an irrational fear of large horned male bovines but have at it.

  227. 227
    relatd says:

    FH at 169, 173, 177, 182, 187, 190 and 213,

    As you soldier on here, ever on guard for a disparaging word about evolution, I have to agree with a number of posters here. You don’t get it. I don’t think you understand evolution or Intelligent Design. In the end, it boils down to the same old boring things: finger pointing and accusations like a person having an “agenda.”

    Your thinking has not * evolved * Fred. The 10-speed evolving into a motorcycle post was a good one. How about this? I put all the parts needed for a bicycle in a pool of water. Will it self-assemble in a million years?

  228. 228
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    Well sure, except I wonder whether climate change, say, is truly random. God’s hand behind it all?

    I can only see that as a sincere comment and therefore it’s a good thing that you’re wondering about that. I’m grateful to see it.
    Yes, otherwise climate changes would affect the environment and provide an impossible number of random variables and instability.

    Humans fuelling their own destruction by causing carbon dioxide levels (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere to mount seemingly inexorably?

    Yes, exactly. And humans are intelligent and can work against the mindless drive for immediate satisfaction. But even with that rational power, humans are doing what a blind, mindless process will do. This is good evidence that nature is not built on that law of survival and reproduction alone. The balance and harmony (fragile as it is at times) that we see in nature says that something else is at work, and yes – I like how you put that. “God’s hand behind it”, keeping opposing forces in balance and not allowing any one to wipe out all the others.

  229. 229
    Fred Hickson says:

    @225

    There does seem to be a rather reactionary house political view here. You’d think ID was all about the science, not the politics. 😉

  230. 230
    relatd says:

    ET at 221,

    Zinc? Can you post some evidence for that?

  231. 231
    relatd says:

    FH at 229,

    Anything to deflect Fred? Anything? You are good at… uh… something.

    🙂

  232. 232
    Silver Asiatic says:

    VL

    My understanding is that in respect to evolution a mutation is random in the sense that the cause of the mutation, whatever it may be, is not causally connected to the eventual effect of the mutation on the organism.

    That’s a good explanation for how the term is commonly used regarding mutations.

  233. 233
    Fred Hickson says:

    SA, I have a sense of humor (what ID skeptic posting here wouldn’t?) but that comment was perfectly serious. ID seems to perceive a conflict with science and evolutionary theory in particular that doesn’t exist for me. God the Designer doesn’t need puny ID.

  234. 234
    Fred Hickson says:

    Related

    What? Raise a sensible point and I’ll try find time to respond.

  235. 235
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    ID seems to perceive a conflict with science and evolutionary theory in particular that doesn’t exist for me.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is untestable nonsense unless you are discussing genetic diseases and deformities.

  236. 236
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, straightforward physics. KF

  237. 237
  238. 238
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, vaxx rates are increasingly irrelevant as non sterilising, short effect if any, hence multiple boosters within months to a year or so. High adverse events rates. KF

    PS, the key political breakthrough was July 4, 1776, building on centuries of contributions. That moved us beyond oligarchy as in effect the space of political possibilities. The cultural buttresses to sustain that are being eroded and we are trending lawless ideological oligarchy. Not good.

  239. 239
    Fred Hickson says:

    Nobody eating a varied diet is likely to be short on zinc and it is quite possible to overdose by taking supplements. There is zero evidence intake of zinc supplements protects against Covid infection whereas there is enormous evidence vaccination is safe and protects against Covid, especially severe infection.

  240. 240
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, note my comment on clashing uncorrelated deterministic streams. If the causal trains in collision are dynamic stochastic already, then the result is even more the case. So, random relative to “fitness” — often a circular concept — is in effect randomness. Or, safer terminological ground, chance or accident. You will note I normally speak of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, guess why, given the sort of endless exchanges that too often happen and make mountains out of mole hills. KF

  241. 241
    kairosfocus says:

    PS am i the only one seeing a red asterisk on “Comment” with required fields are marked red-star?

  242. 242
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF @ 238,

    I can’t parse that. Are people on Montserrat vaccinated?

  243. 243
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    God the Designer doesn’t need puny ID

    In one sense, that’s undoubtedly true. But since ID is about origins, this becomes a very significant point in another way. We can evaluate nature, the world, reality, human life – and find some evidence that God is, in fact, the Designer.

  244. 244
    Fred Hickson says:

    ID is about origins? Then why all the blather here against evolutionary theory which does not address life’s origin, only what happens subsequently?

  245. 245
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, many are, but if you are unaware you need to do some reading beyond the partyline sources. KF

  246. 246
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, as we both know, origins is a broad span, and of course OoL is the root of the tree of life. KF

  247. 247
    jerry says:

    Zinc – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F1cnWup9M

    MedCram video at beginning of C19

    Drs Zelenko Bryan Tyson. Almost 100% success with high risk patients using zinc along with ionphore

  248. 248
    relatd says:

    FH at 234,

    “God the Designer doesn’t need puny ID.” God can and did walk on water and calm the storm literally. So yes, HE can do what He likes at any time. He is the intelligence and HE is the cause of causes. God does not need man’s puny understanding, meaning science.

  249. 249
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF @ 245,

    You mentioned Covid and I was curious. If you’d rather not say, no problem.

  250. 250
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: BTW, climate is a 30 or 33 year moving average of weather so of course it changes. The issue is, trends, cycles and strange attractors etc. Then there are issues on negative feedback, which stabilises unless one runs into gain and phase margin trouble. KF

  251. 251
    relatd says:

    Fred at 244,

    You are the first organism. You have no competition. What are you going to eat? How will you digest it? Where are you getting instructions about how to reproduce?

  252. 252
    Fred Hickson says:

    God does not need man’s puny understanding, meaning science.

    Obviously not. But then why give us this enormous universe and the ability (and curiosity) to study it? Come to that, why us? It is all very mysterious.

  253. 253
    Sandy says:

    Fred Hickson
    There is zero evidence intake of zinc supplements protects against Covid

    🙂 How in the world these “skeptics” are so gullible on believing whatever goverment tell them? These people have identical opinions with CNN(=democrats )meaning they have no opinions at all, just repeat what tv told them , perfect NPC type.

    Relatd
    Fred at 244,

    You are the first organism. You have no competition. What are you going to eat? How will you digest it? Where are you getting instructions about how to reproduce?

    It’s very simple. Hydrogen bonds. 🙂
    “Scientific” explanation (fairytales) will start in 3…2…1…

  254. 254
    Fred Hickson says:

    You are the first organism. You have no competition. What are you going to eat? How will you digest it? Where are you getting instructions about how to reproduce?

    Good questions. But “organism” presupposes the ability to self-sustain and reproduce. Self-sustaining requires an energy source to maintain an out-of-equilibrium state against entropy, which will get us all in the end. First organisms could have used chemical energy sources. They didn’t need to be fast or efficient as there was no competition.

  255. 255
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Sandy

    So ID is politics, then?

  256. 256
    jerry says:

    The red star doesn’t seem to mean anything.

  257. 257
    Fred Hickson says:

    Readers and commenters, here, my apologies. I’m retired and the hot weather has driven me indoors so I have more time on my hands than I deserve. If only Upright Biped would pop in and had time to exchange ideas with me.

    A guy can dream…

  258. 258
    Fred Hickson says:

    The red star doesn’t seem to mean anything.

    Unless you have the key to the code!

  259. 259
    relatd says:

    FH,

    Get over it Fred. As guardian of all that is Evolution, you obviously don’t know how to engage in actual discussion. Perhaps I, and some here, can get you out of the eternal hamster wheel you’re stuck in.

  260. 260
    asauber says:

    “So ID is politics, then?”

    Fred,

    Is Climate Change? Here’s a hint: Do any politicians or political parties use the issue to get votes?

    Andrew

  261. 261
    relatd says:

    Asauber at 260,

    That makes zero sense. Either global climate change caused by human activity is happening or it’s not. U.S. votes don’t matter in China or Africa.

  262. 262
    asauber says:

    “Either global climate change caused by human activity is happening or it’s not.”

    Relatd,

    Politically, it doesn’t matter if it’s happening or not. The question is, does anyone use the issue politically? What do you think the answer is? How much money is getting tossed around by pols because of it?

    Andrew

  263. 263
    relatd says:

    Andrew,

    The answer is: It doesn’t matter. Politicians are not some alien lifeform that do not live on the same planet we do. I am really tired of this concept of politics. We are all human beings who have to solve our problems, or not.

  264. 264
    asauber says:

    Relatd,

    I’m just reacting to Freddie’s Climate Change Troll. He’s dumb enough to pretend to think it’s not a political issue, and then turn around and accuse others of being political.

    Andrew

  265. 265
    relatd says:

    Andrew,

    I get it. But, for me, we should all be working together not “voting along party lines.”

    Best,
    Me

  266. 266
    asauber says:

    not “voting along party lines.”

    Relatd,

    Unfortunately, we don’t have an array of viable choices.

    Andrew

  267. 267
    relatd says:

    Andrew,

    So they are telling us individuals that we can stop climate change but who do you know that owns factories that send tons of reactive gases into the atmosphere?

  268. 268
    asauber says:

    A: “So they are telling us individuals that we can stop climate change”

    B: “but who do you know that owns factories that send tons of reactive gases into the atmosphere?”

    Relatd,

    A: That’s to get individual votes.

    B: No one, but the demand for such factories cuts across all political lines.

    Andrew

  269. 269
    Querius says:

    Bob O’H @205,

    So yes, my hypothesis is that all “junk DNA” has a function, though likely to have a variety of different functions.

    Thanks, that helps. To be clear – do you mean a function for the organism, or would you include “selfish genetic elements” whose sole function is to replicate themselves, without providing any function for the organism?

    Yes, my hypothesis is that all “junk” DNA has a function, which potentially has a wide range of beneficial possibilities, direct and indirect (including error correction in DNA) to living things.

    Dawkins’ theory (an anthropomorphic projection) could be generously compared to the notion that the chicken is the egg’s method of reproducing more eggs (reminiscent of alternation of generations as in medusa and polyp generations). Or perhaps gut flora, having massively higher potential evolutionary responsiveness, evolved the equivalent of exoskeletons in the form of “animals” to provide a perfect hosting environment for their reproduction and spread. Or perhaps the nucleic acids themselves are “selfish,” and somehow part of a universal consciousness. No, I’m not hypothesizing any of these.

    The Darwinist presumption is that biological structures and features are all due to random mutation and thus likely NOT to have a function.

    This is most certainly NOT the position of evolutionary biology.

    Oh really? So, do you believe that the causes of mutations are random events or is there a Zeus-in-the-clouds hurling high-energy particles, UV light, viruses, or sending mutagenic chemicals to precisely determined locations in a DNA molecule?

    -Q

  270. 270
    ET says:

    Earth to Fred Hickson:

    How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It is only if blind and mindless produced life would way say they also produced its diversity. And an intelligently designed OoL means that organisms were designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes. Meaning ID’s concepts of biological evolution are very useful.

    That you continually ignore that just further proves that you are not here for an honest, open discussion.

  271. 271
    Fred Hickson says:

    Yes, my hypothesis is that all “junk” DNA has a function, which potentially has a wide range of beneficial possibilities, direct and indirect (including error correction in DNA) to living things.

    Dodging the evidenced fact that genomes contain sequences that clearly have no function for the organism in whose genome they reside .

    Edited for clarity

  272. 272
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    There is zero evidence intake of zinc supplements protects against Covid infection whereas there is enormous evidence vaccination is safe and protects against Covid, especially severe infection.

    That is either a lie or based on your ignorance. I just posted a peer-reviewed paper that says zinc, along with an ionophore, prevents the virus from replicating. This has already been demonstrated in other corona viruses.

    A vaccine that does NOT prevent infection and illness AND can cause irreparable damage. Versus OTC supplements to ensure your body is getting the essential nutrients that it needs. This entire pandemic is due to our nutritional deficiencies.

  273. 273
    ET says:

    The people who say the majority of any genome is junk need to explain the histone octamers that spooled up that junk so the functional parts can be expressed.

  274. 274
    Fred Hickson says:

    A vaccine that does NOT prevent infection and illness AND can cause irreparable damage.

    Millions of people have been vaccinated. Where are the accounts of irreparable damage? Yes, vaccinated people still catch Covid, but the symptoms can range from non-existent to mild. The unvaccinated risk lifelong disability and death.

  275. 275
    Fred Hickson says:

    The people who say the majority of any genome is junk need to explain the histone octamers that spooled up that junk so the functional parts can be expressed.

    Surely they need to explain everything.

  276. 276
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Where are the accounts of irreparable damage?

    Documented. Google is your friend.

    The unvaccinated risk lifelong disability and death.

    OTC supplements can easily defend us from covid-19. People have died from the vaccine. People have become disabled from the vaccine. All documented.

    People die from malnutrition. People become disabled due to malnutrition. A good multivitamin, along with added zinc, vitamin D, antioxidants and an ionophore like green tea or quercetin is all anyone needs to be protected from covid and influenza.

  277. 277
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Surely they need to explain everything.

    And yet all they can explain are genetic diseases and deformities.

  278. 278
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, they are there and are not rare, but they are marginalised. Even web searches will exclude or marginalise, as BTW I am seeing on other topics too. The narrative is king. KF

  279. 279
    Fred Hickson says:

    OTC supplements can easily defend us from covid-19. People have died from the vaccine. People have become disabled from the vaccine. All documented.

    Your claim. You produce the evidence. If people were dying and suffering irreparable damage from vaccines, how is this not news?

    People die from malnutrition. People become disabled due to malnutrition. A good multivitamin, along with added zinc, vitamin D, antioxidants and an ionophore like green tea or quercetin is all anyone needs to be protected from covid and influenza.

    Starvation is a problem now in parts of the world and likely to get worse with the prevention of Ukraine’s grain reaching them. The cure for malnutrition is the availability of food, in sufficient variety. Food supplements are a very recent fad and unnecessary where anyone has access to a decent and varied diet.

  280. 280
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Your claim. You produce the evidence. If people were dying and suffering irreparable damage from vaccines, how is this not news?

    The evidence has been produced. And vaccine deaths and damage has been in the news.

    And I am not talking about starvation. Do you even read what you are responding to?

  281. 281
    Fred Hickson says:

    On the other hand I see no harm in green tea. Have you tried Kombucha? My wife insists on giving me a daily shot of her home brew and I’m still here to tell the tale.

  282. 282
  283. 283
    Fred Hickson says:

    The evidence has been produced. And vaccine deaths and damage has been in the news.

    Post a link then.

  284. 284
    Fred Hickson says:

    You may want to start here, bearing in mind who this

    I’m interested in ET justifying his claim that Covid vaccination has caused “irreparable damage”.

  285. 285
    ET says:

    I am not going to do the research that you can do for yourself. The way you ignore people, there is no way I care about your opinion that is based on willful ignorance.

  286. 286
    Fred Hickson says:

    So, I’ve confessed to being thrice-vaccinated, soon to get my fourth.

    ET? I guess you aren’t.

    Kairosfocus?

    Anyone else prepared to say whether they’ve been vaccinated and why?

    Those confessing to having been vaccinated – any ill effects?

  287. 287
    Fred Hickson says:

    I am not going to do the research that you can do for yourself. The way you ignore people, there is no way I care about your opinion that is based on willful ignorance.

    Deary me. It’s pretty obvious there isn’t any evidence of “irreparable damage” that would stand up to scrutiny. Bluff called. Bluff exposed!

  288. 288
    Fred Hickson says:

    Oh and on

    The way you ignore people…

    I have ignored some comments (A Sauber, certainly, a fair few of ET’s) but if anyone wants me to look at a previous comment that I may have missed, just drop in a comment number and
    i’l do my best to respond to any substantive content.

  289. 289
    relatd says:

    FH at 279,

    Fred, your credibility, which had been poor, continues to drop. Grain from the Ukraine not reaching people? Do you know farmers in the United States have been and are being paid billions of dollars to grow nothing? That way, when there’s a drought in one part of the country, or war, other farmers can start planting. It worked great during the Cold War. Not to mention the grain the U.S. sent to foreign countries.

  290. 290
    Seversky says:

    Effect of High-Dose Zinc and Ascorbic Acid Supplementation vs Usual Care on Symptom Length and Reduction Among Ambulatory Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection
    The COVID A to Z Randomized Clinical Trial

    Key Points

    Question Do high-dose zinc, high-dose ascorbic acid, and/or a combination of the 2 reduce the duration of symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)?

    Findings

    In this randomized clinical trial of 214 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving outpatient care, there was no significant difference in the duration of symptoms among the 4 groups.

    Meaning

    These findings suggest that treatment with zinc, ascorbic acid, or both does not affect SARS-CoV-2 symptoms.

  291. 291
    JHolo says:

    I hope people here realize that “adverse events” are any health issue that occurs after a vaccination, regardless of its cause. For example, a swallowed penny and three broken arms were recorded as “adverse events” following the Pfizer child vaccination.

  292. 292
    Seversky says:

    Fred Hickson/286

    Anyone else prepared to say whether they’ve been vaccinated and why?

    Vaccinated twice, boosted twice. Why? Polio, smallpox and is there any doubt that the population of Europe wouldn’t have jumped at the chance of a vaccine against the Plague in the 14th century?

    Those confessing to having been vaccinated – any ill effects?

    Slightly sore arm at the injection site for a couple of days, mild flu-like symptoms for a couple of days after the first shot.

  293. 293
    Fred Hickson says:

    Thanks for the info, Seversky. Hope you set a trend in responses!

  294. 294
    Sandy says:

    First, nobody showed (in a scientific experiment not “explanations” about how might/could/should have happened)how a change in gene can led to an evolutionary change in morphology.
    Secondly, there are a lot of scientific experiments in which is shown that exists a change of morphology WITHOUT genetic change.

    This “gene can change morphology” is a strange kind of brainwashing that people believe instinctualy without chalenging the idea or asking for evidences. It’s same situation with “random mutation” that is instinctualy accepted by people that don’t know too much about biology .

    1. There are no evidences for genome changing morphology .
    2.There are strong evidences for change of morphology without genome change.

    Then the discussion about mutations is useless. A mutation will never create a morphological change the only thing that a mutation could do is death or a defect / disease. Not very helpfull for darwin’s soldiers.
    PS: I think this concept of mutation is as false as old concept of junk DNA.
    Mutations (except the errors ) are all part of genome maintenance algorithms that no scientist will hack so they say it’s neutral or whatever as “explanation”.

  295. 295
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Relatd (sic)*

    Is this what you are talking about?
    https://thecounter.org/biden-administration-farmers-conservation-reserve-crp-usda-vilsack/

    *couldn’t resist 😉

  296. 296
    relatd says:

    Bizarre to see this about the virus. This is how it breaks down.

    A) I don’t trust the government so I won’t get a vaccine.
    B) I’ll use some alternative form of treatment because it’s better and/or safer than getting a vaccine.
    C) I’ll take the vaccine and the booster and the booster after that.

    Every year. That’s every year, There’s a new flu shot. And people get it. Every year. But oh no, THIS is different. How is it different? “The vaccines were rushed into production.” Really? They were tested on nobody? That’s how they got Emergency Use Authorization? And now, after millions of shots have been delivered, the real-world results are obvious.

    Has anyone seen the ads on American TV for new drugs? Listened for all the side effects? After watching dozens of commercials, it’s clear to me that I would never take any of these drugs unless my doctor, and only my doctor, told me I needed one.

  297. 297
    JHolo says:

    FH, I have been vaccinated for COVID. Twice and one booster, with the second booster scheduled for next week. Polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hep A and B, shingles, tetanus, and probably a few more.

    Our daughters have had all of these (except shingles) as well as HPV, to protect against cancers caused by an STD. I wonder what some here would think of a father vaccinating his underage daughters against one of the risks of sexual activity.

  298. 298
    Fred Hickson says:

    First, nobody showed (in a scientific experiment not “explanations” about how might/could/should have happened)how a change in gene can led to an evolutionary change in morphology.

    The classic case is achondroplasia where a mutation in a particular gene causes morphological changes in the long bones.

    If you want a much tougher conundrum, try asking how anyone can explain how innate behavior encodes in genes.

  299. 299
    Fred Hickson says:

    JHolo

    FH, I have been vaccinated for COVID. Twice and one booster, with the second booster scheduled for next week. Polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hep A and B, shingles, tetanus, and probably a few more.

    Too much info! 😉 but thanks!

    Our daughters have had all of these (except shingles) as well as HPV, to protect against cancers caused by an STD. I wonder what some here would think of a father vaccinating his underage daughters against one of the risks of sexual activity.

    Well, the cat is out of the bag now!

  300. 300
    relatd says:

    FH at 295,

    I was thinking about this:

    https://farm.ewg.org/

  301. 301
    Fred Hickson says:

    Excellent points at 296, Relatd, but did you get a Covid shot?

  302. 302
    JVL says:

    Relatd: And now, after millions of shots have been delivered, the real-world results are obvious.

    Yes, a lot of people have had much less severe symptoms from COVID-19 because they were vaccinated. This is a very good thing. Probably millions of lives were saved. Isn’t that the point? Isn’t that good?

  303. 303
    relatd says:

    FH at 301,

    That’s classified information.

  304. 304
    relatd says:

    JVL at 302,

    There are still a number of people who do not believe this. Some side effects from the various vaccines have been reported in various credible sources. Some people never believed the vaccines were safe. My recommendation would be that these people talk to their doctor.

  305. 305
    JVL says:

    Fred Hickson: Anyone else prepared to say whether they’ve been vaccinated and why? Those confessing to having been vaccinated – any ill effects?

    Gladly vaccinated three times and hoping for a fourth, to be honest. Why wouldn’t I get vaccinated, the health risks from getting a severe case of COVID-19 include death which is not something I’d like to entertain. Also, there are more and more studies showing that long COVID (symptoms which persist for a year or more) can be debilitating for people who are not vaccinated.

    I got the flu one year . . . that was a revelation. I had thought the flu was like a bad cold; what was the fuss? I was out, non-functional, for two weeks. Ever since then I’ve gotten my yearly flu jab. I don’t expect it to prevent me getting the flu 100% but I hope it takes away some cases and some symptoms if I am exposed.

    No ill effects really with the COVID vaccines. Just like any other vaccine, a bit of a sore spot but, to be honest, if I had had the vaccine whilst sleeping I doubt I would have noticed anything.

  306. 306
    JVL says:

    Relatd: There are still a number of people who do not believe this. Some side effects from the various vaccines have been reported in various credible sources. Some people never believed the vaccines were safe.

    Every vaccine ever invented has had a few cases of very negative side effects. That is true. I’m not denying that. But, generally, probabilistically, it’s much, much better for you to get vaccinated than not.

    The chances of dying in a car accident driving to work are greater than having a severe reaction to a COVID vaccination but people are still driving to work.

    The issue really is that people want to make up their own mind. They want to choose to drive to work and risk dying in an accident. They want to choose to not get vaccinated and die of COVID. Mostly, dying in a car accident doesn’t affect that many other people. But, we have created laws for insurance which protect those you might kill or maim if you drive poorly or your brakes fail. Right now, there are no laws protecting people you might infect with COVID because you chose not to get vaccinated. When such laws are in place then I’ll be much more likely to support a decision to stay unvaccinated. But right now, an unvaccinated person who thinks they should be able to move amongst the general population without thinking of others is akin to Typhoid Mary.

    If you care about other people AND you choose to not get vaccinated then, please, stay away from others. It’s the humane and caring thing to do. Also, you don’t get to make the choice for others, especially those with compromised immune systems. Please stay away from them.

  307. 307
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, you were given a place to start. Who is Dr Robert Mallone, and why is he being a dissident? KF

  308. 308
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    It’s pretty obvious there isn’t any evidence of “irreparable damage” that would stand up to scrutiny.

    Your willful ignorance isn’t an argument, Fred. Anyone can search on the long-term side effects of the covid-19 vaccines.

    There is a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for terminating an employee for refusing to get the vaccine. She refused because she had just become pregnant after years of trying. She refused because her mother received the vaccine and became irreparably damaged.

    My wife now has a huge cyst attached to her thyroid. The endocrinologist said it was from the vaccine and boosters. Now she needs major surgery.

  309. 309
    ET says:

    Vaccines for covid-19 and influenza are not required. There are better ways to beat those viruses.

  310. 310
    ET says:

    seversky is another willfully ignorant clown. The OTC regimen is to prevent infection. It is not a treatment.

    What is wrong with you?

  311. 311
    asauber says:

    Oh look, the Vaccine Virtue Signallers have popped out of the ground. Must be spring.

    Andrew

  312. 312
    ET says:

    JVL:

    If you care about other people AND you choose to not get vaccinated then, please, stay away from others. It’s the humane and caring thing to do.

    Pure stupidity. If the other people are vaccinated, then they don’t have anything to worry from me.

  313. 313
    JVL says:

    Sandy: First, nobody showed (in a scientific experiment not “explanations” about how might/could/should have happened)how a change in gene can led to an evolutionary change in morphology.

    You should read Neil Shubin’s book Some Assembly Required wherein he lays out cases where a documented change in a control gene does lead to a change in morphology.

  314. 314
    Fred Hickson says:

    Thanks, JVL, If I weren’t already vaccinated, you’d have convinced me. 🙂 I have to confess I skipped the ‘flu jab last two winters as with the social distancing, i thought any chance of catching it was negligible. I believe ‘flu infections nose dived during the Covid pandemic.

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm

  315. 315
    ET says:

    Neil Shubin doesn’t have any idea what makes an organism what it is. He doesn’t know what determines biological form. He doesn’t have any clue how blind and mindless processes produced metazoans, which require meiosis and the processes involved with developmental biology.

  316. 316
    Fred Hickson says:

    KF

    FH, you were given a place to start. Who is Dr Robert Mallone, and why is he being a dissident? KF

    I looked him up. Not impressed.

  317. 317
    Sandy says:

    FredHicks
    The classic case is achondroplasia where a mutation in a particular gene causes morphological changes in the long bones.

    😆 Yep, this doesn’t help you too much. I was talking about darwinian evolution.Why do you think is called “genetic disorder” and not “genetic evolution”? You should call them to edit .
    Oh wait I know what you think :men are women , genetic disorder is genetic evolution.
    You must be very confused it’s a common symptom of darwin’s soldiers.

  318. 318
    ET says:

    I do not need the covid-19 or influenza vaccines. So, no, I will not get either of them. There are better ways to fight those viruses. And it all starts with having the proper levels of essential nutrients, like zinc and vitamin D.

    We already know that zinc prevents both viruses from replicating. So, I don’t understand why these alleged defenders of science have an issue with science!

  319. 319
    JVL says:

    ET: Pure stupidity. If the other people are vaccinated, then they don’t have anything to worry from me.

    What about those whose immune systems are compromised? What about those for whom vaccines are risky because they are going through chemotherapy?

    You say atheists shouldn’t care about others because they have no moral standard. Well, show me you do have a moral standard and think about those more vulnerable than yourself.

    Anyone can search on the long-term side effects of the covid-19 vaccines.

    Please provide some documentation. I will read it.

    My wife now has a huge cyst attached to her thyroid. The endocrinologist said it was from the vaccine and boosters. Now she needs major surgery.

    I am very sorry to hear about your wife and my wishes are for her to make a full and complete recovery. Is that why you were absent for a while? I honestly and truthfully hope she is going to be okay.

    But, I have to say, I don’t understand how someone could conclude that a vaccine caused a cyst. I’d be very interested to hear the reasoning behind that diagnosis.

    And, am I to understand that she got vaccinated and you didn’t?

  320. 320
    JVL says:

    ET: We already know that zinc prevents both viruses from replicating. So, I don’t understand why these alleged defenders of science have an issue with science!

    The zinc results are lab based are they not? As opposed to long-term supplement, in human studies?

    A lot of things will kill virus in Petri dishes.

    Again, I’m curious . . . your wife chose to get vaccinated and you did not. Is that correct? That must have cause a bit of a conflict.

  321. 321
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What about those whose immune systems are compromised? What about those for whom vaccines are risky because they are going through chemotherapy?

    Vaccinated people can get infected and spread it to those people. What is wrong with you?

    As for my wife- It’s the thyroid. And clearly he knew of other such cases.

    My wife had to get vaccinated or loose her job. I don’t have that issue. My kid had to get vaccinated or not go to college. I don’t have that issue.

  322. 322
    Fred Hickson says:

    ET

    There is a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for terminating an employee for refusing to get the vaccine. She refused because she had just become pregnant after years of trying. She refused because her mother received the vaccine and became irreparably damaged.

    There is a minimal risk with an adverse reaction to all vaccines. In the case of Covid, the benefit far outweighs the risk.

    My wife now has a huge cyst attached to her thyroid. The endocrinologist said it was from the vaccine and boosters. Now she needs major surgery.

    I’m sorry to hear about your wife’s condition. I hope her treatment is completely successful. Here is a paper on how rare thyroid problems are and how the majority are resolved.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-022-01786-7

  323. 323
    ET says:

    Zinc represses viruses in the body and in the lab. Researchers now know how it does it.

  324. 324
    JVL says:

    ET: Neil Shubin doesn’t have any idea what makes an organism what it is. He doesn’t know what determines biological form.

    Did you actually read his book and the studies he cites? These are just thought publications, they are based on observed, experiment generated data. Changes in control genes can lead to changes in morphology. It’s really clear.

    In fact, it seems that the basic building blocks of life are fairly common amongst all life forms. What changes is when the production of certain proteins are turned on and turned off. Which is down to the control genes. If that is true then that would mean that you could get a lot of variation in life forms with fewer mutations. All you need to do is to control the control genes.

  325. 325
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    In the case of Covid, the benefit far outweighs the risk.

    That’s your opinion. In the cases of the flu or covid, OTC supplements are better for most people. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if OTC supplements were mandatory- if you couldn’t keep the proper concentrations from food alone.

  326. 326
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Did you actually read his book and the studies he cites?

    Yes. Changes in control genes do not explain those control genes. They do not explain meiosis All you have is question-begging. And I am not surprised that you don’t see that.

  327. 327
    ET says:

    Neil Shubin doesn’t have any idea what makes an organism what it is. He doesn’t know what determines biological form. He doesn’t have any clue how blind and mindless processes produced metazoans, which require meiosis and the processes involved with developmental biology.

    Still stands, JVL

  328. 328
    JVL says:

    ET: Vaccinated people can get infected and spread it to those people. What is wrong with you?

    Yes, true, but their viral load is much lower (which reduces the chances of spreading the disease) AND they suffer from much less severe symptoms.

    As for my wife- It’s the thyroid. And clearly he knew of other such cases.

    I suppose he did. I would still be interested in seeing those studies. Didn’t you ask?

    My wife had to get vaccinated or loose her job. I don’t have that issue. My kid had to get vaccinated or not go to college. I don’t have that issue.

    Okay. that explains the difference. Your daughter is okay then? I hope. She hasn’t had any problems?

  329. 329
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I’m also very sorry to hear about ET’s wife. Prayers for her full recovery.

    1000 COVID Stories
    https://1000covidstories.com/

    If you go online and do simple research on the term “COVID Vaccine Side Effects” you are presented with a gaggle of links that are strangely similar. “Side effects are minor and common.” “Side effects are a sign that your vaccine is working properly.” When you visit YouTube and do the same search, again, the videos have a consistent theme. “The risk from the vaccines are less than the risks from COVID” and “vaccine side effects are actually a good thing.” If you post a comment or video on Facebook about vaccine side effects your post is deleted and your account may be closed.

    But when you go to an uncensored website like Bitchute.com or Rumble.com and do the same search, you see hundreds of videos from real people who have had horrific side effects from their injections.

    This website is dedicated to sharing the truth about these people and their testimonials. Watch for yourself and make up your own mind.

    Ok, I did as suggested above:

    https://rumble.com/search/video?q=%E2%80%9CCOVID%20Vaccine%20Side%20Effects%E2%80%9D

  330. 330
    Fred Hickson says:

    Yep, this doesn’t help you too much. I was talking about darwinian evolution.

    Me too.

    Why do you think is called “genetic disorder” and not “genetic evolution”? You should call them to edit.

    If I were Peter Dinklage, I’d find that label pretty insulting. Short stature can be an advantage, depending on niche.

    Oh wait I know what you think :men are women , genetic disorder is genetic evolution.

    Fond of labels, are you? I addressed the point that genetic mutations lead to morphological changes. Whether those changes are beneficial or should be called disorders depends on the context of the niche.

  331. 331
    JVL says:

    ET: Yes. Changes in control genes do not explain those control genes. They do not explain meiosis All you have is question-begging. And I am not surprised that you don’t see that.

    Look, if most biological variation is just down to mutating control genes then that makes workable variation even more plausible and possible.

    And, you’re changing the goal posts, again. We were talking about what makes an organism and, clearly, as indicated by real science, some of it comes down to different control genes. Which is a different issue from where did those control genes come from, true. But does that mean you’re will to concede the point that some life form changes are due to control gene mutations?

  332. 332
    Sandy says:

    FredHicks
    Short stature can be an advantage, depending on niche.

    🙂 Yep, very advantageous niche :Need treatments with growth hormone and have complications such as obesity, hydrocephalus, obstructive sleep apnea, middle ear infections or spinal stenosis . All these will help them to adapt better than normal people,and become stronger,faster ,smarter outcompete them .:)
    PS: Storytelling disguised as science . This is all you have . Try again.
    Not a single word about scientific evidences about morphological changes (that are ADAPTIVE and NOT “genetic disorders”) WITHOUT being changes in genome? . Don’t be shy!

  333. 333
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Sandy

    I’ll concede that (though achondroplasia has been exploited by dog breeders in breeds such as the Basset hound, Dachshund, corgi very successfully) biological evolution in the sense of selection does not run wild. My point that genetic variation and morphology are clearly linked remains.

  334. 334
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Yes, true, but their viral load is much lower (which reduces the chances of spreading the disease) AND they suffer from much less severe symptoms.

    Not lower than mine. Weird that I have not been sick even though I have been maskless in crowded and over-crowded situations. I have been in hospitals. I have been in schools. Friends have had the vaccination and still became severely ill.

    And I wouldn’t expect studies from doctors communicating cause-and-effect relationships. It shouldn’t be too difficult to search on, though.

  335. 335
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, you just wrote off the technology behind mRNA vaxxes. Own goal. But then, that’s what you get from following accusatory critics. KF

  336. 336
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Look, if most biological variation is just down to mutating control genes then that makes workable variation even more plausible and possible.

    Control genes just determine if the organism will develop properly or not. They do NOT determine the type of organism that will develop.

    We were talking about what makes an organism and, clearly, as indicated by real science, some of it comes down to different control genes.

    No. We are talking about what determines the types of organisms. And seeing that you cannot account for control genes, you are begging the question.

    But does that mean you’re will to concede the point that some life form changes are due to control gene mutations?

    Deformities, JVL.

    To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

    Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

    Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

    DNA doesn’t have any magical power. It isn’t the molecule that you need it to be.

    They took a control gene from a mouse (PAX6) and inserted it into a fruit fly to replace its homolog (eyeless). These HOX genes controlled eye development. The fly developed fruit fly eyes.

    There isn’t anything in the genome that determines the type of organism that will develop. And you can’t account for the processes involved in developmental biology. So, you are begging the question.

  337. 337
    kairosfocus says:

    The politics and bureaucracy of adverse events https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/college-student-experienced-adverse-reaction-following-second-dose-covid-vaccine-gets-expelled-refusing-booster-shot-despite-doctor-requests-exemption/ Apparently they don’t believe such reactions are real or can be serious so they are treating medical challenges as disciplinary issues. Given phenomena such as anaphylactic shock, likely they are going to end up with unacknowledged blood on their hands. But then, that is already happening over the mass killing of our living posterity in the womb. In short, this reflects benumbed conscience and darkened thought in action that is eroding the value, respect for life.

  338. 338
    Querius says:

    For some fun, let’s play a game;

    Guess whether the originator of each following quote is an advocate of Intelligent Design (ID) or of Evolution (EV):

    1.

    “For a long time, the holy grail was to build a tree of life.” A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

    2.

    Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations.

    3.

    An important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution, the core organizing principle of biology introduces crucial new molecular evidence that tests the conventional scientific view of evolution based on the neo-Darwinian synthesis, shows why this view is inadequate to today’s evidence, and presents a compelling alternative view of the evolutionary process that reflects the shift in life sciences towards a more information- and systems-based approach . . .

    3.

    . . . .integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.

    4.

    The genome is not life itself. Far from genes building organisms, they should be seen as prisoners of the organism.

    5.

    Epigenetics can potentially revolutionize our understanding of the structure and behavior of biological life on Earth. It explains why mapping an organism’s genetic code is not enough to determine how it develops or acts and shows how nurture combines with nature to engineer biological diversity.

    6.

    . . . evidence that a paradigm shift is underway or has already taken place, replacing neo-Darwinism (the standard model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations) with a vastly richer evolutionary synthesis than previously thought possible.

    7.

    . . . in a reappraisal and a new synthesis of theories, concepts, and hypotheses on the key aspects of the evolution of life on earth in light of comparative genomics and systems biology. . . . presents many specific examples from systems and comparative genomic analysis to begin to build a new, much more detailed, complex, and realistic picture of evolution. The book examines a broad range of topics in evolutionary biology including the inadequacy of natural selection and adaptation as the only or even the main mode of evolution . . .

    -Q

  339. 339
    JHolo says:

    We know that ET is not vaccinated for COVID. but we haven’t heard from KF yet.

    The unvaccinated have made air travel far easier for me because they aren’t flying. So, the selfish part of me encourages those who refuse to get vaccines.

    But, the unvaccinated have also tied up ICUs, delaying necessary surgeries for those who must stay in the ICU after their surgeries.

    So, your resistance to vaccinations has its pros and cons. The pros are that it makes air travel for the vaccinated easier. The cons is that it kills people.

  340. 340
    Querius says:

    Yeah, I love all the regurgitated propaganda.

    Of my friends, acquaintances, and relatives in the US, I’d say that about a quarter of them had alarming reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine and one of them died as a result (healthy and active, but dead within about a month). His death was never reported through the VAERS database, which is very hard to use. Another friend had such a bad reaction, he said he thought he was going to die and chose not to get any further jabs. My neighbor also had a severe reaction (he was dizzy for a month or two to the degree that he couldn’t drive his car). A diabetic friend of mine got Covid, was very sick, but was advised to get the vaccine anyway. He did and suffered a severe reaction. Maybe this is just “luck,” but it’s significant to me!

    The other day, I saw that the UK posted the statistics related to Covid-19 and the vaccines, which made it seem that the vaccine resulted in MORE additional deaths than what it presumably prevented! A bunch of people that I know who were vaccinated got infected with Covid-19 anyway, and one vaccinated family member, more than once.

    Our family and other people I know continue to wear masks, treat everyone else as having chicken pox, and gargle/swab with 0.5-1.0% Povidone Iodine after any potential exposure. Two studies that I’m aware of (look for them on PubMed) shows that PVP-I destroys all detectable viruses and bacteria after 30-60 seconds. I buy it by the gallon and dilute it to a 1% solution.

    -Q

  341. 341
    Fred Hickson says:

    1, ID
    2, EV
    3, ID
    4, ?
    5, ?
    6, ?
    7, ?

    The ? indicating statements I disagree with but don’t read like ID.

  342. 342
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, do you think it is advisable to release medical or other personal information online? You have enough given information and reasonable access to more, especially on a matter of such sobering import. I suggest that you ponder the case of the student who had an adverse reaction sustained for seven months to date, got a physician recommendation per stated policy then was subjected to disciplinary action including meal card lockout apparently without warning. There are many others, and while you will predictably be dismissive, there is a growing list of repurposed drugs with significant evidence of effectiveness, including population level data. The forced false dilemma is without warrant and arguably constitutes a global violation of the hard-bought Nuremberg Code. KF

    PS, even the traditional lemon/fever grass has immunoregulatory effect, hence its second name.

    PPS, Ironically, it is now hard to find advice online on the risks of marijuana.

  343. 343
    William J Murray says:

    Anyone else prepared to say whether they’ve been vaccinated and why?

    I haven’t had any of the Covid-19 shots. I also never had a flu shot. The reason? A deep, apparently innate anti-authoritarianism. I have zero trust for virtually anyone or any group that positions itself as authoritative, and a natural inclination to not do what they want me to do, and not believe what they want me to believe. The more powerful and insistent the person or group, the more inclined I am to resist. I think there’s a direct correlation between the attempted exercise of the power of the person/group and the likelihood it is due to corrupt self-interest at the expense of those they are attempting to exert that power and influence over.

    When huge amounts of money are involved, I assume it’s all entirely corrupt and, generally speaking, I don’t believe a word anyone profiting from that powerful, authoritative influence is saying.

  344. 344
    ET says:

    I am flying. I am unvaccinated. I haven’t been sick since the pandemic started. Yet I have been, maskless, to crowded and over-crowded venues. I have been around sick people.

  345. 345
    jerry says:

    Just over 250 comments in roughly two days that has got nowhere.

              UD at its best.

     

  346. 346
    ET says:

    A good multivitamin, along with added zinc, vitamin D, antioxidants and an ionophore like green tea or quercetin is all anyone needs to be protected from covid and influenza.

  347. 347
    Sandy says:

    JVL
    You should read Neil Shubin’s book Some Assembly Required wherein he lays out cases where a documented change in a control gene does lead to a change in morphology

    Here’s Neil Shubin : https://youtu.be/1C3oTjWkkdg
    JVL,take a pen and paper and check how many times an unprovable assumption(storytelling) is done and how many times a scientific fact is presented.
    To spot the storytelling you have to watch it as if you ‘ve never heard about the theory of Darwin . 🙂

  348. 348
    asauber says:

    “When huge amounts of money are involved, I assume it’s all entirely corrupt and, generally speaking, I don’t believe a word anyone profiting from that powerful, authoritative influence is saying.”

    WJM,

    Ditto.

    Andrew

  349. 349
    JHolo says:

    : KF: JH, do you think it is advisable to release medical or other personal information online?

    I am allergic to penicillin, I had scoliosis surgery at the age of 17 (Harrington rod), a spontaneous pneumothorax and surgery to correct it when I was 20. I had a vasectomy when I was 32 (under a general). I have myopia and macular degeneration. I have had my wisdom teeth removed and have four dental implant. Is there anything else you would like to know?

  350. 350
    Sandy says:

    I am allergic to penicillin, I had scoliosis surgery at the age of 17 (Harrington rod), a spontaneous pneumothorax and surgery to correct it when I was 20. I had a vasectomy when I was 32 (under a general). I have myopia and macular degeneration. I have had my wisdom teeth removed and have four dental implant. Is there anything else you would like to know?

    Why did you cancel your surgery for arrogance removal ?

  351. 351
    relatd says:

    William J Murray,

    So you’re the guy with the Resist bumper sticker on your car. Good to know.

    🙂

  352. 352
    JHolo says:

    Sandy: Why did you cancel your surgery for arrogance removal ?

    They couldn’t find it. The sarcasm organ hid it.

  353. 353
    Fred Hickson says:

    JHolo

    I had a vasectomy when I was 32 (under a general).

    I only had a local so was able to have a chat with my surgeon while the procedure was ongoing. He was Spanish so did not cotton on to my question “will I be able to play the violin after this?”

    Of course, he replied.

    That’s amazing, I couldn’t play it before!

    Ba-dum-tish. I’m here all week.

  354. 354
    Fred Hickson says:

    Doesn’t look like anyone else is interested in Querius’ challenge at comment #338. Is he going to do a reveal?

  355. 355
    Sandy says:

    All are written by Darwin’s soldiers.

  356. 356
    Fred Hickson says:

    Is that your final answer?

    C’mon, Querius, the tension is unbearable here! 🙂

  357. 357
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson,

    ALL but one are evolutionary biologists in related fields, one holds a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. The lone exception is a journalist who published interviews with evolutionary biologists.

    Since you firmly believe that “junk” DNA “clearly” has no function, you might want to focus your hyperskepticism against Nessa Carey.

    She is a British biologist working in the field of molecular biology and biotechnology. She is International Director of the technology transfer organisation PraxisUnico and a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London. Her expertise is in the field of epigenetics. According to Wikipedia,

    She is the author of The Epigenetics Revolution and Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome which explore advances in the field of epigenetics and their implications for medicine.

    Regarding her book, Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome, here’s a description of the subject:

    For decades after the identification of the structure of DNA, scientists focused only on genes, the regions of the genome that contain codes for the production of proteins. Other regions that make up 98 percent of the human genome were dismissed as “junk,” sequences that serve no purpose. But researchers have recently discovered variations and modulations in this junk DNA that are involved with a number of intractable diseases. Our increasing knowledge of junk DNA has led to innovative research and treatment approaches that may finally ameliorate some of these conditions.

    Junk DNA can play vital and unanticipated roles in the control of gene expression, from fine-tuning individual genes to switching off entire chromosomes. These functions have forced scientists to revisit the very meaning of the word “gene” and have engendered a spirited scientific battle over whether or not this genomic “nonsense” is the source of human biological complexity. Drawing on her experience with leading scientific investigators in Europe and North America, Nessa Carey provides a clear and compelling introduction to junk DNA and its critical involvement in phenomena as diverse as genetic diseases, viral infections, sex determination in mammals, and evolution. We are only now unlocking the secrets of junk DNA, and Nessa Carey’s book is an essential resource for navigating the history and controversies of this fast-growing, hotly disputed field.

    Of course, with your vast experience and profound knowledge of the full scope of your personal opinion, nothing published regarding the advancements in genetics will have any impact on the fortress of your admitted ignorance.

    Why don’t you consider purchasing her book? You might discover that exploring the world outside your fortress is terrifying but nevertheless interesting. I do this as well as a challenge and prevent ossification.

    -Q

  358. 358
    Sandy says:

    A reasonable evolutionary scientist about why mainstream scientists resist to …science : https://youtu.be/o7ckZ7SmfhE

  359. 359
    Fred Hickson says:

    *chuckles*

    Querius, no big deal but why not identify the authors for your quotes? I didn’t cheat but now I’m tempted to search.

  360. 360
    Querius says:

    Sandy @358,

    Thanks for the link to the talk by Eva Jablonka. She was one of the authors I quoted from. Her reference to Larmarckism is particularly ironic considering how Lamarck was unfairly “debunked” in the biology courses I took.

    Also note how Fred Hickson dodges any cogent response to the quote I provided from Nessa Carey regarding “junk” DNA (*chuckle* is a typical trollbat response). She was one of the authors from @338 in addition to Nessa Jablonka. No, I’m not going to do any “homework assignments” from him. He doesn’t click on any of the links anyway, apparently yours included.

    -Q

  361. 361
    Seversky says:

    Georgi Marinov reviews two books on junk DNA

    The December issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach has a review of two books on junk DNA. The reviewer is Georgi Marinov, a name that’s familiar to Sandwalk readers. He is currently working with Michael Lynch at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, USA. You can read the review at: A deeper confusion.

    The books are …

    The Deeper Genome: Why there is more to the human genome than meets the eye, by John Parrington, (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press), 2015. ISBN:978-0-19-968873-9.

    Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome, by Nessa Carey, (New York, United States: Columbia University Press), 2015. ISBN:978-0-23-117084-0.

    […]

    Parrington claims that noncoding DNA was thought to be junk and Georgi replies,

    However, no knowledgeable person has ever defended the position that 98 % of the human genome is useless. The 98 % figure corresponds to the fraction of it that lies outside of protein coding genes, but the existence of distal regulatory elements, as nicely narrated by the author himself, has been at this point in time known for four decades, and there have been numerous comparative genomics studies pointing to a several-fold larger than 2% fraction of the genome that is under selective constraint.

    […]

    Georgi goes on to explain where Parringtons goes wrong about the ENCODE results. This critique is devastating, coming, as it does, from an author of the most relevant papers.1 My only complaint about the review is that George doesn’t reveal his credentials. When he quotes from those papers—as he does many times—he should probably have mentioned that he is an author of those quotes.

    Georgi goes on to explain four main arguments for junk DNA: genetic load, the C-value Paradox, transposons (selfish DNA), and modern evolutionary theory. I like this part since it’s similar to the Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate. The audience of this journal is teachers and this is important information that they need to know, and probably don’t.

    His critique of Nessa Carey’s book is even more devastating. It begins with,

    Still, despite a few unfortunate mistakes, The Deeper Genome is well written and gets many of its facts right, even if they are not interpreted properly. This is in stark contrast with Nessa Carey’s Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome. Nessa Carey has a PhD in virology and has in the past been a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology at Imperial College, London. However, Junk DNA is a book not written at an academic level but instead intended for very broad audience, with all the consequences that the danger of dumbing it down for such a purpose entails.

    It gets worse. Nessa Carey claims that scientists used to think that all noncoding DNA was junk but recent discoveries have discredited that view. Georgi sets her straight with,

    Of course, scientists have had a very good idea why so much of our DNA does not code for proteins, and they have had that understanding for decades, as outlined above. Only by completely ignoring all that knowledge could it have been possible to produce many of the chapters in the book.

    […]

    The inclusion of tRNAs and rRNAs in the list of “previously thought to be junk” DNA is particularly baffling given that they have featured prominently as critical components of the protein synthesis machinery in all sorts of basic high school biology textbooks for decades, not to mention the role that rRNAs and some of the other noncoding RNAs on that list play in many “RNA world” scenarios for the origin of life. How could something that has so often been postulated to predate the origin of DNA as the carrier of genetic information (Jeffares et al. 1998; Fox 2010) and that must have been of critical importance both before and after that be referred to as “junk”?

    You would think that this is something that doesn’t have to be explained to biology teachers but the evidence suggests otherwise.

  362. 362
    Fred Hickson says:

    So Querius quotes:

    Number 1 is Casey Luskin. Fred is correct the quote is from an ID supporter.

  363. 363
    Fred Hickson says:

    3, James Shapiro. Third Way again. Am I sensing a pattern?

  364. 364
    Fred Hickson says:

    4, Denis Noble. Third Way again. Where are we grouping Third Way members? ID or EV?

  365. 365
    Fred Hickson says:

    Comment disappeared. Using phone so probably fat fingers.
    2, Eva Jablonka. Third Way.

  366. 366
    Fred Hickson says:

    5, Nessa Carey. See Seversky’s comment.

    No wonder Fred was confused.

    @ Querius, if you have a point to make about epigenetics, why not just make it?

  367. 367
    Sandy says:

    Dan Graur:
    “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong”!

    Encode :

    These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 % of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions
    …Operationally, we define a functional element as a discrete genome segment that encodes a defined product (for example, protein or non-coding RNA)
    or displays a reproducible biochemical signature (for example, protein binding, or a specific chromatin structure)

    The vast majority (80.4 %) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA—and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type

    There is no doubt about the function of DNA (and darwinists can’t get rid of 10-30 -40 years of brainwashing just by reading the truth) and I would guess that there other 20% that was not detected with activity by ENCODE has been active in embrionary life participating to build the organism and then turned off after birth. So probably it’s 110% 🙂 functional and not junk . Only ignorance (or malice )about complexity of life would make someone “to predict” junk DNA .

    @361 ,Seversky, I don’t see the arguments of “the devastating critique ” maybe you help by poiting out .
    PS:
    the comment section from https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/03/georgi-marinov-reviews-two-books-on.html?m=1 is very interesting . Giorgi Marinov himself also commented and his comments are very revealing about his obvious bias . Would be too much to quote how he contradicts his own ideas.

  368. 368
    ET says:

    seversky’s quote:

    Georgi goes on to explain four main arguments for junk DNA: genetic load, the C-value Paradox, transposons (selfish DNA), and modern evolutionary theory.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution, modern or otherwise.

  369. 369
    paxx says:

    Asauber: It would be interesting for one of the Evolutionists commenting here to engage in a discussion of what the limitations of Evolution are.

    To me, what would be interesting is what features within Earth’s lifeforms evolutionary biologists have been unable to explain using their methods, models and techniques. Just-so stories are not an adequate explanation.

    Paxx

  370. 370
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, see the actual agenda of research that broke through a lot of prejudice and some bigotry and has been published, that is enough answer. KF

  371. 371
    Querius says:

    Sandy @367,

    Thanks for the good points and the link to the comments. I appreciated the one by Tomoko Ohta. The presumption of “junk” is one based on IGNORANCE. “I don’t know the function, so it must therefore be junk. But it’s extremely difficult to prove that something has no function. Considering the vast complexity of a living cell, it’s massively more likely in biology that things do have a function.

    To the Georgi Marinov critique:

    However, no knowledgeable person has ever defended the position that . . .

    https://www.thoughtco.com/the-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-250339
    So, that would include Dr. Susumu Ohno, who first used the term, “junk” with regard to DNA in his 1972 paper.

    . . . 98 % of the human genome is useless.

    No, they’ve just been calling it “junk” DNA for all those decades. After all, even “junk” might not be totally “useless,” right?

    The 98 % figure corresponds to the fraction of it that lies outside of protein coding genes, but the existence of distal regulatory elements, as nicely narrated by the author himself, has been at this point in time known for four decades, and there have been numerous comparative genomics studies pointing to a several-fold larger than 2% fraction of the genome that is under selective constraint.

    This is history rewritten in retrospect. They didn’t know this for four decades. Pure browbeating.

    Of course, scientists have had a very good idea why so much of our DNA does not code for proteins, and they have had that understanding for decades, as outlined above.

    Really??? And pray tell what is that reason “why” so much of our DNA does not code for proteins? More browbeating.

    Only by completely ignoring all that knowledge could it have been possible to produce many of the chapters in the book.

    Ooh, an ad hominem attack! Naturally, anyone who questions Darwinian orthodoxy must be purposely ignoring thousands of papers on the subject, which by sheer weight, has become unassailable. No new ideas or paradigms are allowed.

    Of course, Eva Jablonka is ignoring the current narrative. She’s making an argument in favor of her new perspective. Consider all the scientists today that are ignoring Aristotle and Newton (how dare they!).

    This is another great example of the Semmelweiss Reflex!
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31837492/

    Eva Jablonka’s perspectives should stand or fall on their own merits, not by a democratic majority.

    -Q

  372. 372
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    Where are we grouping Third Way members? ID or EV?

    Not sure, but if evolution – they’re evidence for a conflict among evolutionary theorists.
    if ID, then they’re prominent voices supporting the ID inference.

  373. 373
    Seversky says:

    FH

    Where are we grouping Third Way members? ID or EV?

    Maybe they should be a third species?

  374. 374
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @371,

    There have been many unsuccessful attempts at dislodging the good ship Biology from the rocks of racist Darwinism.

    Some of these failed attempts have been ridiculed and then resurrected in versions resembling those of Lamarck’s and those of Cairns-Smith’s 1982 Clay Hypothesis.
    https://www.frozenevolution.com/clay-hypothesis-origin-life
    https://news.rpi.edu/content/2016/09/06/origin-life-rna-world-deep-beneath-surface

    However, one characteristic of a weak or problematic theory is characterized either by extreme plasticity or extreme ossification.

    Darwinism exhibits both extremes in my opinion: the plasticity of being able to rationalize any unpredicted and surprising findings, and to remain generally stable since the mid 1800s despite massive falsifying data. All the other sciences have gone through or are going through major upheavals–all except for biological evolution.

    Sometimes a theory is bad enough not to wait for a replacement, but just to throw it out and say we don’t know. Truthful confession is healing not only to the soul, but also to the sciences.

    -Q

  375. 375
    Seversky says:

    Sandy/367

    There is no doubt about the function of DNA (and darwinists can’t get rid of 10-30 -40 years of brainwashing just by reading the truth) and I would guess that there other 20% that was not detected with activity by ENCODE has been active in embrionary life participating to build the organism and then turned off after birth. So probably it’s 110% ? functional and not junk . Only ignorance (or malice )about complexity of life would make someone “to predict” junk DNA .

    If you read more of Larry Moran’s blog, you will see that, not only is there doubt about the functionality of 80% of the genome, there is fierce debate about what is actually meant by “function” in this context.

    As for the malice, it is clearly coming from some in the neo-Paleyist camp who fear what they perceive as a threat to their religious presuppositions.

  376. 376
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    Sometimes a theory is bad enough not to wait for a replacement, but just to throw it out and say we don’t know. Truthful confession is healing not only to the soul, but also to the sciences.

    I’m seeing more materialists say they don’t know – at least about origin of life. They might even say it about some aspects of evolution, but it’s not enough yet to get rid of the theory. It’s still too difficult to be fully truthful. Too much has been invested in Darwin for that.

  377. 377
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @375,

    So true! I think the difficulty you mention is due to two ideological commitments (aka ideological poisoning):

    1. The desire to declare everything in science solved and static.
    2. The desire to rationalize a philosophy of deterministic materialism.

    So, the science fiction that they can all agree on is far more comforting than the fear of the dislocation caused by new theories or new paradigms, which in turn pale by comparison of the terror in the potential of being confronted by moral responsibility to a Creator.

    Thus, even to consider relaxing these commitments becomes unthinkable to them.

    -Q

  378. 378
    Fred Hickson says:

    Science isn’t about desire, Querius; no matter how badly you desire it. Simply it is observation of phenomena, then experimenting and hypothesis testing to come up with more accurate explanations for observed phenomena.

    Emotions are real and powerful and can take humans on interesting journeys but it’s not science.

  379. 379
    Paxx says:

    Evidence. It’s all that matters.

  380. 380
    Fred Hickson says:

    Weekend away curtailed by invasion of Medosozoa. Climate change becomes harder to ignore on a daily basis.

    What have I missed? Querius must be taking a break too.

  381. 381
    ET says:

    The only thing people can do about climate change is decrease the population by more than half. Only people ignorant of physics think that CO2 drives climate.

  382. 382
    Paxx says:

    Fred: Science isn’t about desire, Querius; no matter how badly you desire it.

    Science is practiced by scientists, who are, unfortunately, humans with cognitive biases.

    Bias matters, and most people don’t take the time to understand the issues well enough to see through the bullsh*t that is very often proffered in the name of “science.”

    For example, it is claimed by some scientists that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, when you drill down into the details of such a claim, one finds that, probably the most important consideration on that topic, is the neurological “programming” differences between human and chimp brains. Any pronouncements about that subject is sheer hogwash, and no science exists that can plausibly back up the claim. Researchers don’t even know the “what”, let alone the “how.”

    Science is good. Ad hoc claims and just so stories are not science.

    Paxx

Leave a Reply