Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists Spin ENCODE Findings More Than Even I Thought Possible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was certain the Darwinists would spin the ENCODE findings, but even I am stunned at their sheer audacity. In response to my previous post, Critical Rationalist says that the ENCODE findings, which falsify a prediction Darwinists have been making for decades, far from being a crushing defeat for the theory and its proponents is a positively good thing for Darwinists.

CR writes: “all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows . . . Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect.”

Then CR makes the outlandish suggestion that ENCODE is somehow a loss for ID. He writes: “[When ID] Merely assum[es] the entire genome ‘should be functional’ [it] does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized.”

CR is wrong on both counts. Yes, Darwinism will survive ENCODE as he suggests, but not because it is the best explanation for the data. It will survive because materialists have hegemonic control of the academy and for them Darwin is quite simply the only game in town. That’s what Dawkins means when he says he would choose Darwinism even if there were no evidence for it.

No, CR, ID proponents did not merely say that the code “should be functional.” They made a testable prediction in the teeth of the overwhelming opposition from Darwinists. They said, “Darwinists are wrong when they say the vast majority of DNA is junk. We predict that function will be found.” And that prediction was confirmed.

Sorry CR. No matter how you try to spin ENCODE, it is a crushing defeat for Darwinism.

Comments
Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from ‘anomalous’ genetic evidence by 'fabricating theories':
A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009 Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. http://www.discovery.org/a/10651 How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution032141.html Evolution Falsified Yet Again: They Are So Complicated “That it’s Stunning” - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: These similarities between the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, of very odd and peculiar traits, disproves evolution yet again. It’s just another example of how the evidence explains evolution rather than evolution explaining the evidence. Evolution is a tautology. It is contorted to fit whatever we find in nature, no matter how absurd the theory must become. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolution-falsified-yet-again-they-are.html
The following article goes through a bit of the history of how neo-Darwinists have come to use horizontal gene transfer to 'explain away' contradictory patterns in the genetic evidence;
Evolutionists Celebrated This Prediction But When it Later Failed They Didn’t Care - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: Sometimes their use of this lateral or horizontal gene transfer mechanism is a real stretch. And in any case, their story calls for evolution to have created this incredible mechanism which then was so important for adaptation and the supposed subsequent evolution. In other words, evolution created evolution.,,, In some cases evolutionists have no idea, beyond pure speculation, about how it could have happened. As they admit in one paper: "An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolutionists-celebrated-this.html Here’s the Latest Just-So Story: Recurrent Evolution - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: The first step to explaining something away is to give it a name. And so evolutionists have labeled this awkward evidence as recurrent evolution.,,, If the pattern fits the evolutionary tree, then it is explained as common evolutionary history. If not, then it is explained as common evolutionary forces. Heads I win, tails you lose.,, Common descent has always been an auxiliary hypothesis for the simple reason that evolution’s theoretical core does not mandate common descent, or anything else for that matter, aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally. Beyond that, anything goes.,, Evolutionists insist the species arose naturally, their religion requires it. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/heres-latest-just-so-story-recurrent.html Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis – 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract Another Evolutionary Just-So Story Was Just Refuted (But Another One Replaced it) - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012 Excerpt: as one evolutionist explained: "Our most significant findings reveal not only differences between the species reflecting millions of years of evolutionary divergence, but also similarities in parallel changes over time since their common ancestor." You remember learning that with evolution species split and move apart. Now, amazingly, we know they also evolve together. Differences, similarities, whatever. In any case, it’s Evidence 1, Evolution 0: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-evolutionary-just-so-story-was.html
Here are articles that clearly illustrate that the protein evidence (extreme rarity of functional proteins), no matter how crushing against Darwinism, is always crammed into the Darwinian framework by Evolutionists:
The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study - Cornelius Hunter - January 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/hierarchy-of-evolutionary-apologetics.html
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Darwinism, and materialism in general, the atheistic philosophy which undergirds Darwinism, is certainly not 'hard' science in the normal sense of engineering and physics in that there is a rigid falsification criteria that can be applied to it to see if it is true or not (at least not a rigid criteria that Darwinists will accept),,,
Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
,,, Moreover, Darwinism does not make daring predictions such as the predicted bending of starlight by a certain degree around the sun during an eclipse, which was perhaps the most famous stunning confirmed prediction in the history of science that brought General Relativity overnight prominence in science (and made a household name out of Einstein):
Gil Dodgen - Something that continues to frustrate me is that Darwinists would like people to believe that their “science” is in the same category as mine and that of my colleagues who are working on the development of hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators. We must get stuff right. There is accountability. If the thing burns up, is aerodynamically or structurally deficient, and falls apart and goes down in flames, we are proven to be wrong and incompetent. There is no such standard for Darwinists. They just make up stories and call it science. When their theories/stories go down in flames (e.g., junk DNA) they just proclaim victory, that Darwinian theory is still incontrovertible and fully intact, and walk away. It would be as though the scientists and engineers who designed and built the hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators, after they crashed and burned, proclaimed that the project was actually a success, and that their theories predicted this outcome from the start. If our team did such a thing, and made such a claim, we would be laughed out of the science and engineering community and never be awarded another penny of funding from anyone for anything. Yet, Darwinists do exactly what I have described, and are not only never held to account, but are awarded endless funding to make up stories that have nothing to do with legitimate science. This is a travesty. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/scientific-frustration/ "In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere close to the bottom, far closer to [the pseudoscience of] phrenology than to physics." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist
neo-Darwinian evolution simply has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which one can rigorously analyze it.
Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/
This lack of mathematical rigor in Darwinism is clearly exposed by supposed ‘Evolutionary Algorithms’, which have been ‘intelligently designed’ by computer programmers to simulate Darwinian evolution (please explain that huge non-sequitur to me!):
Refutation of Evolutionary Algorithms https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1h33EC4yg29Ve59XYJN_nJoipZLKIgupT6lBtsaVQsUs Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.” Leonardo Da Vinci
Yet despite this lack of scientific/mathematical clarity in Darwinism, it is still possible, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following audio lecture, to see that Darwinism is, in reality, a ‘degenerating science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;
Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio lecture http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3 Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx
Even some 'honest' Darwinists are now admitting that their theory has suffered major renovations (fabricated 'epicyclic' theories) in order to fit what the evidence is now saying:
EMBO workshop focuses on “phenomena that are not part of the traditional narrative of molecular evolution … ” August 2012 Excerpt: It is impossible to deny that our ideas on evolution are shifting from the simple and rigid ‘random mutation–selective fixation’ scheme epitomized in the Modern Synthesis, to a much more complex, nuanced picture. Under the new view, the interplay between stochasticity and adaptive mechanisms is extensive and essential, both in the generation of variation and in the fixation of the changes. https://uncommondescent.com/evolutionary-biology/embo-workshop-focuses-on-phenomena-that-are-not-part-of-the-traditional-narrative-of-molecular-evolution/
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Nick, you are embarrassing yourselfBarry Arrington
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Or, not: http://selab.janelia.org/people/eddys/blog/?p=683NickMatzke_UD
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
The whole issue is damaging to evolutionist activists. They always demand creationists must accept conclusions from 'scientists" and here it seems they are not doing that. Are these people not doing doing science? How could they be wrong? Somebody is wrong about something! If they reject these findings then they are rejecting science? Yes or no!? If these researchers had found Junk DNA as evolutionists desired they would be demanding ID etc creationists submitt to the findings! What changed? If the findings can be questioned then all findings can be questioned including evolution stuff! Degrees and papers isn't settling things after all. As a YEC i have no interest and disagree that DNA is in any way a trail of biology. Its just a grand presumption that has griped to many. Another error. Whether junk or not it still is all about assumptions about DNA and biology that has never been proven. It is however a embarrassment to not just some idea on DNA and evolution but to the whole universe of confidence in investigative abilities of researchers in these very slippery things. who predicted this?Robert Byers
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply