Failure: How Evolutionists React

TheisticEvolutionist (#2), That all depends on what kind of theistic evolutionism (TE) one believes in. If one simply says that God is allowed to interfere in nature in any way He sees fit, detectable or not, then of course it is not a problem. (In fact, this position does not exclude by definition young earth creationism.) But if one's definition of TE (or one's practical belief in TE) includes the belief that such design cannot be detected (except perhaps by "faith"), then one's predictions are indistinguishable from those of Darwinism, or at least some naturalistic process, and therefore a problem for naturalistic processes is a problem for one's theory. The first definition of TE includes a variant of ID. The latter definition doesn't. The two definitions are distinct. They can be distinguished practically by their answer to the question, Is Divine design detectable in nature? Paul Giem

The more I follow the debate, the more I realize the utter irony and contradiction that evolutionists live by. Whenever they attack the other side about being religious or unscientific - they are really speaking about themselves in those moments. It's fascinating. How can someone be so deaf and blind to not see the errors in their own logic? Yet it happens all the time. I really think it is more a suppresion of the truth rather than a denial of it... It should be obvious to the rational thinker that not just protein synthesis is a highly unlikely random event, but even more so is the origin of epigenetic information stored in embryonic cell structures. I do think power and position keep some evolutionists from admitting the obvious, but I think for many, it is a suppresion of the truth rather than denial of it, and those roots lie deeply entrenched in an anti-religous or anti-Creator framework. Tim Gardiner

OT: The Michael Medved Show - Featuring Jay Richards on Economics and Darwinism http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-10-04T16_03_22-07_00 bornagain77

OT: The machinery of mitosis: Kinetechores, centrioles and chromosome pumps - October 4, 2013 Excerpt: At the cellular level, the mitotic spindle apparatus is arguably the most complicated piece of machinery in existence. Its basic function is to isolate and separate the chromosomes during cell division. A group of researchers at the University of North Carolina have been piecing together a model of the spindle and associated proteins which provides a way to visualize in detail exactly what might be going on. (illustration on site),,, The results of these efforts are not best transmitted in word form. Nowadays collaborations like this are often headed up by artisans that recruit the biology and computer tech experts needed to create a visual simulation.,,, The larger public may have to wait a little while to see the fruits of these new labors which seek to make the unseeable biology visible. The mitotic spindle may perhaps be the feature film that many haven't even realized they have been waiting for. http://phys.org/news/2013-10-machinery-mitosis-kinetechores-centrioles-chromosome.html Until the feature film comes out, the following video will have to do,,, DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video https://vimeo.com/33882804 bornagain77

Proteins may be a problem for Darwinian evolutionists, but not for theistic evolutionists! TheisticEvolutionist

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer comments: ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 bornagain77