Larry Moran Was Channeling Ace Ventura

Larry Moran:

I didn’t know you could read the book.

That almost sounds like an insult. ;) Pretty sure I've read chapter 13, I recognize the name of the chapter, lol. Probably won't hurt to read it again though. I'll check out Chapter 4. Mung

Professor Moran. Do you believe that evolution occurs according to need or happens irregardless of need? Jack Jones

Mapou@85 "Or do we have to listen to interminable and boring just-so stories that essentially amount to a big pile of BS?" You have to listen to just-so stories that essentially amount to a big pile of BS. Jack Jones

Mung says, Actually i was referring to the book, which I have access to. References from the book that use neutral evolution and genetic drift to explain the origins of genome architecture. I didn't know you could read the book. Start with Chapter 4 "Why Population Size Matters."

The key point in the following pages is that the types of evolution that can occur within a species depend strongly on the population size. Natural selection is ubiquitous, but for many aspects of genomic evolution, the forces of selection are quite weak. If the population size is sufficiently small, the noise associated with random gamete sampling can completely overwhelm weak selective forces, yielding a situation in which the population evolves as though selection were entirely absent. This idea has long been appreciated in molecular evolution (Kimura, 1983; Ohta, 1997). However, a general theme that will emerge in the following chapters is that although small population size promotes the accumulation of mutations that are mildly deleterious in the short term, the resultant alterations to gene and genomic architecture can provide a potential setting for secondary adaptive changes that are unattainable in large populations. p. 70

There's lots of math and equations because, as Lynch puts it, population genetics has "a level of mathematical rigor that has few rivals in the life sciences." When you have mastered that, read Chapter 13 "Genomfart." There Lynch explains why it's important to understand modern evolutionary theory, especially population genetics. He says,

... I will comment on the current state of affairs in evolutionary biology, particularly the perception of softness in the field that has been encouraged by the propagation of evolutionary ideas by those with few intentions of being confined by the constraints of prior knowledge.

Larry Moran

I agree with VC. Where is this evolutionary theory and where can its claims be tested? Will we need a time travel machine? Or do we have to listen to interminable and boring just-so stories that essentially amount to a big pile of BS? Mapou

Larry Moran:

Keep in mind that Michael Lynch is considered to be the world’s leading expert on molecular evolution and genomes

Can he tell us how to test the claim that natural selection and drift can produce a bacterial flagellum? Can he tell us what makes an organism what it is? If not then what good is his expertise to evolutionism? Virgil Cain

Zachriel:

Evolutionary theory has many components...

Using terms like "evolutionary theory" just causes confusion as it makes people think there is an evolutionary theory. Virgil Cain

What’s the matter Jack, Can’t you type any faster? Jack's not a pro like some of us. We've learned the power of copy and paste! Mung

Larry Moran:

His book on the subject is still the best source but it’s expensive.

Actually i was referring to the book, which I have access to. References from the book that use neutral evolution and genetic drift to explain the origins of genome architecture. But I'll check out the papers to see what they say. Thank you for the links. Mung

I said, Please don’t just fire off knee-jerk criticisms based on a quick read of the abstracts. That’s not helpful. Six minutes later Jack Jone says, Did Michael Lynch have to believe that life originated spontaneously or believe that he is a fish like PZ Myers believes he is, in order to do his work? What's the matter Jack, Can't you type any faster? Larry Moran

Jack Jones: Yet Evolutionists can’t agree on just what this theory is. What part of "Evolutionary theory has many components, some more strongly supported than others. The commonality of life is strongly supported; The relative role of necessity and contingency is still subject to debate," do you not understand? Zachriel

"Evolutionary theory has many components, some more strongly supported than others" Yet Evolutionists can't agree on just what this theory is. Jack Jones

Jack Jones: still under the illusion that there is some “evolutionary theory” in some singular sense, even though evolutionists can’t agree on just what the theory is. Evolutionary theory has many components, some more strongly supported than others. The commonality of life is strongly supported. The relative role of necessity and contingency is still subject to debate. Zachriel

@Professor Moran Did Michael Lynch have to believe that life originated spontaneously or believe that he is a fish like PZ Myers believes he is, in order to do his work? Did you find out which of those chemical elements that you tell your students is free? Jack Jones

Mung asks,

Can you guide me to where he [Michael Lynch] says neutral evolution and genetic drift explains the origins of genome architecture?

His book on the subject is still the best source but it's expensive. Here are some papers you can read. Lynch, M. (2007) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(Suppl 1):8597-8604. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702207104]

Abstract: The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization. These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in nonadaptive processes, with the population-genetic environment imposing strong directionality on the paths that are open to evolutionary exploitation.

Lynch, M., and Conery, J.S. (2003) The origins of genome complexity. Science, 302(5649):1401-1404. [doi: 10.1126/science.1089370 ]

Abstract: Complete genomic sequences from diverse phylogenetic lineages reveal notable increases in genome complexity from prokaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes. The changes include gradual increases in gene number, resulting from the retention of duplicate genes, and more abrupt increases in the abundance of spliceosomal introns and mobile genetic elements. We argue that many of these modifications emerged passively in response to the long-term population-size reductions that accompanied increases in organism size. According to this model, much of the restructuring of eukaryotic genomes was initiated by nonadaptive processes, and this in turn provided novel substrates for the secondary evolution of phenotypic complexity by natural selection. The enormous long-term effective population sizes of prokaryotes may impose a substantial barrier to the evolution of complex genomes and morphologies.

Lynch, M., and Marinov, G. K. (2015) The bioenergetic costs of a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514974112]

Abstract: A long-standing mystery in evolutionary genomics concerns the lineage-specific expansions of genome size in eukaryotes relative to prokaryotes. One argument is that the cellular complexity and elevated gene numbers in eukaryotes were impossible without a mitochondrion. However, the energetic burden of a gene is typically no greater, and generally becomes progressively smaller, in larger cells in both bacteria and eukaryotes, and this is true for costs measured at the DNA, RNA, and protein levels. These results eliminate the need to invoke an energetics barrier to genome complexity.

Keep in mind that Michael Lynch is considered to be the world's leading expert on molecular evolution and genomes. You don't have to agree with him but you should be able to accurately state the views of the experts if you want to honestly portray the status of the debate to ID followers. I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to like what Lynch says in those papers. After you read and studied them and checked out the references and the data, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Lynch's coauthor on the last paper is a regular contributor to Sandwalk. You can ask him questions at ... The cost of a new gene Please don't just fire off knee-jerk criticisms based on a quick read of the abstracts. That's not helpful. Larry Moran

"Based on that, evolutionary theory" Zach still under the illusion that there is some "evolutionary theory" in some singular sense, even though evolutionists can't agree on just what the theory is. Jack Jones

mike1962: I didn’t see a yes or no? The Modern Synthesis was more developed than meteorology at that time. mike1962: But I’ll go ahead an tweak the question. Substitute “current evolutionary theory/theories” for the Modern Synthesis. So then, yes or no? mike1962: Do the Zachriels think that current evolutionary theory is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? It's hard to compare such disparate fields. Current evolutionary and meteorological theories, both attempt to explain complex systems. Meteorology is somewhat limited to ongoing weather phenomena, but if we include climatology, in particular, paleoclimatology, then it too includes a historical narrative. Based on that, evolutionary theory is "on par". If you include only non-historical phenomenon, then again, evolutionary theory is probably still "on par". Zachriel

Zechriels: Which we answered, while noting that the question wasn’t directly relevant to the point under discussion. I didn't see a yes or no? But I'll go ahead an tweak the question. Substitute "current evolutionary theory/theories" for the Modern Synthesis. So then, yes or no? mike1962

Larry Moran, Can you guide me to where he [Michael Lynch] says neutral evolution and genetic drift explains the origins of genome architecture? Mung

Just saying it is a fallacious argument doesn't make it so. You have to actually make your case. Virgil Cain

bornagain: if it does not make an argument why are you arguing? We were discussing the structure of Dr JDD's fallacious argument. In any case, you are now claiming that your just saying something is so is an argument. Bizarre. Zachriel

Zachriel, if it does not make an argument why are you arguing? Of note, you have not addressed the issue of Darwinian evolution not being an empirical science in the first place as you claim it is, thus by your own criteria of 'Saying so doesn’t make an argument' you have failed miserably to make your overly simplistic comparison valid. Zacheriel, I'm satisfied that unbiased readers can see your dishonesty and will respond no further to you on this thread. bornagain

Zachriel: Saying so doesn’t make an argument bornagain: Actually it does. b: A. z: what is your argument for A? b: A. z: saying so isn't argument. b: is so. mike1962: It was a question elicited by what you wrote. Which we answered, while noting that the question wasn't directly relevant to the point under discussion. Zachriel

Zechriels: It was immaterial to the point raised. It was a question elicited by what you wrote. Aren't I allowed to do that? mike1962

Zachriel, 'Saying so doesn’t make an argument' Actually it does. But ignoring and denial of facts in evidence does not. Go figure. As to the subject that you want to distract attention away from, i.e. that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has ever been an empirical science, I would like to focus on one thing in particular,

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

Darwinian evolution simply has no empirical evidence that unguided material processes can create proteins and/or genes, much less can it explain life, much less does it have any real predictive power as Quantum Theory and General Relativity do so as to be verified to 13 decimal places, then there is nothing that Darwinian evolution can offer in comparison so as to answer Berlinski's challenge. The inference to Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can offer something in comparison:

Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video: Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 http://www.vimeo.com/11706014 Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? K.D. Kalinsky - Pg. 10 - 11 Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein: Excerpt: It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate the functional information required for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information. I(Ex) > Inat and ID (Intelligent Design) is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein. http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20Web%20Article.pdf

To give a clue just how strong the inference to design is, the following illustration will help

The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. Excerpt: But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456) and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is one in 10^157. How large is the number 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Let us try to illustrate this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They are smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 times 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted four electrons every second and counted day and night, it would still take us 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one inch long. But how many electrons would it take if we were dealing with 10^157 electrons? Imagine building a solid ball of electrons that would extend in all directions from the earth a length of 6 billion light years. The distance in miles of just one light year is 6.4 trillion miles. That would be a big ball! But not big enough to measure 10^157 electrons. In order to do that, you must take that big ball of electrons reaching the length of 6 billion light years long in all directions and multiply it by 6 x 10^28! How big is that? It’s the length of the space required to store trillions and trillions and trillions of the same gigantic balls and more. In fact, the space required to store all of these balls combined together would just start to “scratch the surface” of the number of electrons we would need to really accurately speak about 10^157. But assuming you have some idea of the number of electrons we are talking about, now imagine marking just one of those electrons in that huge number. Stir them all up. Then appoint one person to travel in a rocket for as long as he wants, anywhere he wants to go. Tell him to stop and segment a part of space, then take a high-powered microscope and find that one marked electron in that segment. What do you think his chances of being successful would be? It would be one in 10^157. Remember, this number represents the chance of only 48 prophecies coming true in one person (there are 456 total prophecies concerning Jesus). http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-3.pdf

bornagain

Zachriel:

The Modern Synthesis is a rather old theory,

The Modern Synthesis isn't even a theory. It was the name of a book and also a name given to ideas from several books. It was never one coherent concept. Virgil Cain

bornagain: Zachriel, actually no it was not, but your comparison certainly was. Saying so doesn't make an argument. bornagain: Moreover, as is usual for you, you completely ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution is not a rigorous science in the first place ... Changing the subject doesn't make an argument either. Zachriel

mike1962: So is that a yes or a no? It was immaterial to the point raised. The Modern Synthesis is a rather old theory, its origin predating the discovery of DNA. It was a more comprehensive theory than meteorology was at the time, which was largely limited to watchful waiting. Modern meteorology didn't really begin until computers were marshaled to model the complex weather system (e.g. Lorenz, Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 1963). As for current evolutionary and meteorological theories, both attempt to explain complex systems. Meteorology is somewhat limited to ongoing weather phenomena, but if we include climatology, in particular, paleoclimatology, then it too includes a historical narrative. Zachriel

mike1962: Do the Zachriels think that the Modern Synthesis is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? Zechriels: Dr JDD’s argument was a fallacy of the same construct as the example from meteorology. So is that a yes or a no? mike1962

Zachriel, actually no it was not, but your comparison certainly was. Moreover, as is usual for you, you completely ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution is not a rigorous science in the first place but is in fact a pseudo-science, even a religion, that makes up 'just so stories' as to how some complex system evolved after that system is discovered. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-was-channeling-ace-ventura/#comment-587148 You try to distract from the sheer empirical poverty of Darwinian evolution, as to how unguided material processes can possibly produce such sophistication in molecular biology, so as to try to shift attention away from the elephant in the living room fact that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has ever been, a real empirical science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-was-channeling-ace-ventura/#comment-587249 bornagain

mike1962: Do the Zachriels think that the Modern Synthesis is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? bornagain: if you truly believe such a simplistic comparison to weather forecasting absolves Darwinian evolution of its failure to have a discernible foundation in science, you literally have no clue how science works. Dr JDD's argument was a fallacy of the same construct as the example from meteorology. Zachriel

Prof Moran:

You’ve just heard something for the first time and quick-as-a-wink you assume that you know everything there is to say about genomes and population size. Without doing any homework, you’re prepared to dismiss it as a “just-so” story.

And herein lies the proof in the pudding of the true nature of the assumptive and borderline egotistical approach such evolutionary biologists as yourself, Prof Moran, tend to make. This is by no means the first time I have heard this theory to explain junk in small effective population sizes. In fact, every time this discussion comes up wd400 sticks that line in. Here is the point - I just do not buy it . I see no actual evidence for this, except correlative. All the evidence presented is circular and assumptive of UCD as are many apparent “strong evidences” of molecules-to-man evolution (and yes, I do understand and accept a form of evolution, so please do not play the game that if I reject “evolution”, I reject observable science as that is a fallacy. I even could accept a level of “junk” in the genome but again am open to both possibilities). Secondly, where have I stated that I know everything about genomes and population size? For a pretty intelligent man Prof Moran, you seem to lack the ability to think beyond a one-dimensional train of thought. I was merely hyperbolically demonstrating the point that anyone can “think up” an explanation for an observation that’s fits your favoured theory, but until you can test that it is just a story. For example*, we could find that between the years1992-1995 ice-cream consumption went up dramatically and we also could find that incidence of CJD went up dramatically too. This fits a theory I have prions are transmitted through milk and become activated when cold. This is strong evidence for my theory! But that would be a load of tosh without demonstrating these things in a repeatable manner (*note, this is a completely fabricated example, again, to merely illustrate a point). [and as a footnote: I know this is a trap you set so that when I state that this is not the first time I have heard this you can triumphantly proclaim that clearly I do not understand these things or lack the intelligence to engage in these topics as I do not understand basic premises of evolutionary biology thus justifying the ad hominem attack]  

Why not read the definitive book on the subject

Here you are again – it is definitive, it is settled. You do reaslise don’t you, that many evolutionary biologists disagree on the exact mechanisms and processes we discuss here, don’t you? You do realise, that this was the point in my post? I have read enough of these books over the years to know how circular the arguments are and supported only by the assumptions they make (UCD, homology = direct descendence** , etc). I really do not have time to read another book when I have already read enough (atheistic) books on the matter to convince myself the evidence is lacking and the motive is clear.  

Speaking of just-so stories, can you let me know some details about how the Intelligent Designer constructed mammalian genomes? Show me how this is the case experimentally. After all, that’s no more than you’re asking of your opponents.

Ah, Prof Moran now here is something I can agree with you on! I do not speak for the ID community. I am a scientist myself, a cell and molecular biologist and I understand the scientific method well. I am very different to many people here in that I do not refer to ID as a scientific method. I do believe the evidence and Occam’s razor demand that Design is an obvious and necessary conclusion, but it can only be studied if the assumption is true that it was done on a natural law and with existing materials and in a way that does not violate the natural law we can observe around each other. In other words, design ex nihilo can never be reduced to, nor studied by the scientific method. I am led to ex nihilo design as an inference from the science I can repeat and observe and also history, archaeology, philosophy and theology. But on the biological scientific method I personally believe this cannot be demonstrated. However, we can clearly demonstrate whether or not a naturalistic explanation has the power to explain origins including human, eukaryotic, multicellular, abiogenesis etc. However the evidence is very clear to me that the current naturalistic explanations completely fail and are laughable to assume dirt could turn into Mozart and even into the simpleton of myself typing on a computer designed by humans over the internet to someone 1000s of miles away who can appeal to logical deduction having studies molecular mechanisms that allow us to function (yet we can still not define life despite knowing so much more than our predecessors). Nothing x nothing = everything is not an equation that falls into the realm of logic. Furthermore, disorder and randomness does not result in order, direction, teleological processes and consciousness. Anyone honest with themselves can understand that. This is more than biology. Secondly, and I know you do not believe in supernatural events (as your own religion demands that you do not) and certainly that a Jesus character did in fact perform any miracles, but entertain me. Suppose you were able to transport an event from 2000 years ago to today. You were at a crowd of about 20,000 people where a boy brings to a man 5 small loaves of bread and this turns into feeding 20,000 humans with 12 basketfuls left over. For argument’s sake, let us assume that actually happened. Clearly, if this did happen, it is an ex nihilo creative event, correct? 5 loaves turning to say 50,000 is nothing but ex nihilo as you have 49,995 loaves from nothing. How do you think, if you took a sample of such a loaf, it would differ from one that you could make yourself? You could take it apart and see there was flour, water, salt, yeast. You could take what you can experiment with and show with heat and the right mixtures you could reproduce that loaf in a manner and bake your own from scratch. Your investigations would mean that you could confidently say you know how this bread was >i>made. Yet you would be wrong. Thus if design did occur ex nihilo and was a supernatural event, detection of how is not directly possible with the scientific method. This is essential to understand. The question is therefore not about showing how a designer could have done it, it is what evidence do we have that there is a designer at all. You a priori reject that as an option and as per the modern scientific method reject the idea that anything supernatural can be an explanation. Which is a fair point to a degree, because otherwise you can say “why does protein X interact with protein Y?” and someone can answer “because the flying spaghetti monster is channelling energy to it to do so!” however the evidence for a designer comes from various other means and it is clear that laws are in place so much so that we can be sure of regularity. Thus we can study things we can observe within the natural world and make conclusions about them. What we cannot do is go back to the beginning of time and see what happened ourselves. However, we can eliminate certain naturalistic explanations as plausible based on science we can do in the lab, math, probability, models etc. When we do those things we see the probabilistic issue of molecules to man is the giant elephant in the room that no evolutionist will take seriously because, you have no other naturalistic means of explaining everything around you so the deduction would have to be supernatural. And that is just not an option for you. A bad theory is better than no theory. However, I have no problem with faith. The issue is that dirt to consciousness requires a stupendous amount of faith.  

(I hope you know where the term “just-so” story originated with respect to evolutionary speculations. It’s from the most famous paper in the field of evolutionary biology. The one that all undergraduates have to read if they’re taking a good course in the subject. It was written by two very famous evolutionary biologists who oppose Darwinism. Since you’re so familiar with the ideas of evolutionary biologists, you must have read it. Have you?)

I hope you know I was not using “just-so” in the way evolutionary speculations refer to it. I was using it in its original meaning. As in the English language. Not some cryptic insider meaning.   **Example, something you have stated Prof Moran: “It’s not a genes unless the transcript has a biological function [I agreed, JDD]. One way to tell this is to show that the same region of DNA is conserved and transcribed in other mammals.”  Now I agree here that if something is common among other species that it is more likely to be important. However by assuming that if it is not conserved it is unlikely to have function is the way your evolutionary paradigm a) self-purports its own results and b) slows down science. You state that the binding of polymerases and transcription machinery/transcription factors is sloppy and makes huge numbers of errors and accidental transcriptions. Many would disagree with you – but most of these are not evolutionary biologists so they do not appreciate the implication of tight control and regulation of transcription on the evolutionary paradigm. You realise that implication, thus you assert it is sloppy and binds all sorts of things that it should not bind. By no means is your view the confirmed or correct one. Yet you speak as though it is, much like everything else in evolutionary biology – things are “definitive”. Dr JDD

Is Michael Lynch a fan of Mutation-Driven Evolution? Mung

Larry Moran:

Why not read the definitive book on the subject: The Origins of Genome Architecture by one of the most famous evolutionary biologists alive today, Michael Lynch?

Sure. Can you guide me to where he says neutral evolution and genetic drift explains the origins of genome architecture? Mung

Prof Moran Just so stories in regard to evolutionary speculations come from Rudyard Kipling published in 1902. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories Larry Moran and his fellow materialists trying to do some history revision again. Andre

Larry Moran:

I’m happy to engage any one of you in a debate about junk DNA as long as I don’t have to start back at kindergarten level.

I passed kindergarten with flying colors. The paste was delicious. Mung

Dr JDD asks,

Further you seem to fall into the trap of many just so stories of assuming correlation equals causation. So you observe smaller effective population sized organisms have larger genomes. There is your correlation. Your causation is assumed to be easier accumulation of junk. Now show me how this is the case experimentally. Not with a fancy just so fairy tale story.

You've just heard something for the first time and quick-as-a-wink you assume that you know everything there is to say about genomes and population size. Without doing any homework, you're prepared to dismiss it as a "just-so" story. Why not read the definitive book on the subject: The Origins of Genome Architecture by one of the most famous evolutionary biologists alive today, Michael Lynch? After you read up on the topic, let me know if you still think it's a just-so story. Speaking of just-so stories, can you let me know some details about how the Intelligent Designer constructed mammalian genomes? Show me how this is the case experimentally. After all, that's no more than you're asking of your opponents. (I hope you know where the term "just-so" story originated with respect to evolutionary speculations. It's from the most famous paper in the field of evolutionary biology. The one that all undergraduates have to read if they're taking a good course in the subject. It was written by two very famous evolutionary biologists who oppose Darwinism. Since you're so familiar with the ideas of evolutionary biologists, you must have read it. Have you?) Larry Moran

Dr JDD says,

Here is another point of view – multicellular organisms are more complex and require greater regulation of their generic information so have more functional DNA with as of yet unidentified function. Alternatively the replication time is much longer in these which contributes to genome size. Heck, we could make up some fairy tale and it would have a six evidence to demonstrate the correlation causation explanation you present is true and not just a story assumed.

I'm happy to engage any one of you in a debate about junk DNA as long as I don't have to start back at kindergarten level. Read this and be prepared to address all these points. Then we can talk. If you dismiss any of them without doing any homework—as most of you do routinely—then find someone else to debate. Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate Make sure you understand the Onion Test, which you can't do by reading ID blogs. Make sure you understand basic molecular biology and the fundamentals of developmental biology. Above all make sure you understand the biochemistry of DNA protein interactions if you are going to discuss the ENCODE results in an intelligent manner. Here's some more reading. I know you won't agree with anything I say but if you try to understand the facts and the theory we could have an intelligent debate. Anyone who's prepared to do a bit of homework is welcome to step forward and debate me on whether 90% of the human genome is junk. How many RNA molecules per cell are needed for function? Insulators, junk DNA, and more hype and misconceptions Functional RNAs? The apophenia of ENCODE or Pangloss looks at the human genome Is most of our DNA garbage? What did the ENCODE Consortium say in 2012? The Function Wars: Part I The Function Wars: Part II The Function Wars: Part III The Function Wars: Part IV UDEditors: "Anyone who's prepared to do a bit of homework is welcome to step forward and debate me on whether 90% of the human genome is junk." What a profoundly stupid thing to say. No one believes that. Many Darwinists used to before ENCODE. ID proponents predicted function would be ultimately found. The Darwinists were wrong. The ID proponents were correct. Larry, how can we even begin to debate you when you make Romper Room mistakes like this and don't even seen to have a grasp on the question we are discussing. Now, you go do your homework. See if you can catch up with the rest of us, and if you can, come and back and we will be happy to discuss it with you. Larry Moran

Zachriel, if you truly believe such a simplistic comparison to weather forecasting absolves Darwinian evolution of its failure to have a discernible foundation in science, you literally have no clue how science works. Unlike other overarching theories of science, Darwinian evolution has no demarcation/falsification criteria so as to delineate it as a true science instead of a pseudo-science:

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php

Although Darwinian evolution does not have a rigid mathematical basis to test against so as to 'potentially' falsify it, (as other overarching theories of science have a mathematical basis to test against), (and that fact by itself should be more than enough to disqualify Darwinian evolution from being considered a proper science in the first place), there is also another way to gauge the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as a true scientific theory. First off, Imre Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism does not have rigid demarcation criteria, as other theories have, to test against so as to potentially falsify it,,,

A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm

Although Lakatos tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a bad theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:

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 In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory

Following Lakatos lead, Cornelius Hunter recently compiled a list of the failed predictions that go to the core of Darwinian thought and falsifies Darwinian evolution, as it were, 'from the inside out' :

Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

Supplemental quotes:

"With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter - Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter

Verse and Music:

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.' Third Day - Kicking And Screaming - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3qe65VjZig

bornagain

Zechriels: Meteorology explains when it get hot. And it explains when it gets cold. It explains when it rains, and when it doesn’t rain. It explains when a storm heads towards land, and when it heads out to sea. No matter what the weather does, it’s consistent with the meteorological theory of weather! Do the Zachriels think that the Modern Synthesis is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? I can think of some difference. For one thing we can see evolution of weather systems today, in real-time. There seems to be a lot less to take on faith here. When the modern synthesis posits that human brains evolved from something like a chimp brain via blind natural processes, how do we test that hypothesis to the degree that we test weather predictions? mike1962

Dr JDD: put species on a tree and distant related species have more different gene homology than closer. Except when they don’t. Meteorology explains when it get hot. And it explains when it gets cold. It explains when it rains, and when it doesn't rain. It explains when a storm heads towards land, and when it heads out to sea. No matter what the weather does, it's consistent with the meteorological theory of weather! Zachriel

LarTanner - you miss the point. What Andre means is that a theory that can tolerate whatever the observation is, is a theory of nothing. Not that evolution can explain everything around us! Example: put species on a tree and distant related species have more different gene homology than closer. Except when they don't. Or except where evolution has apparently occurred independently more than once for the same feature and converged molecularly. The answer given is "evolution predicts convergence" but that's a cop out. The point is, it doesn't matter if homology is observed or lack of homology. Evolution explains both and both cases are used as evidence for evolution. I have seen convergence used strongly as evidence for evolution. Yet so is homology. Which is the point - it can accommodate any observation. Dr JDD

Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions - Casey Luskin - November 10, 2015 (Part 4) Excerpt: Just Kidding -- We Anticipated Function! When ENCODE's findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place new ones alongside the old.,,, Thus, while it's true that, (through the years leading up to ENCODE), some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/post-encode_pos100771.html

bornagain

Prof Moran: I think it was clear I was simply paraphrasing what we hear from many evolutionary biologists from one year to the next. It is funny in biological science when you hear people talk about their theories they rarely talk in absolutes. They are usually much more gracious to the competing theories as they recognise the limitations of the scientific method. This is in areas that can be tested as well. yet you claim that I and others like me cannot even get the theory of evolution correct. However you show your arrogance to assume your definition of evolutionary biology is the only correct one - this us evident in what you say. The truth is, even though what I say is paraphrasing, it does represent what we have heard over the years from actual evolutionary biologists. Now you may disagree with those evolutionary biologists but they are still that, and prolific in their field. Further you seem to fall into the trap of many just so stories of assuming correlation equals causation. So you observe smaller effective population sized organisms have larger genomes. There is your correlation. Your causation is assumed to be easier accumulation of junk. Now show me how this is the case experimentally. Not with a fancy just so fairy tale story. Here is another point of view - multicellular organisms are more complex and require greater regulation of their generic information so have more functional DNA with as of yet unidentified function. Alternatively the replication time is much longer in these which contributes to genome size. Heck, we could make up some fairy tale and it would have a six evidence to demonstrate the correlation causation explanation you present is true and not just a story assumed. Dr JDD

Larry Moran:

Is it wrong for me to assume that’s what you mean when you talk about Darwinism on this blog? Is it wrong for me to assume that’s what Barry Arrington means since he wrote the glossary entry?

Nope. We should have just stuck with Darwinism = Designer Substitute. The zero in Coke zero. No one believes neutral drift is capable of giving the appearance of design. Mung

Virgil Cain says,

Larry, UD doesn’t speak for all IDists and I am not beholden to UD’s glossary. Grow up.

We were discussing Barry Arrington's version of Darwinism and whether he understands it. Try and keep up. I'll get to you later. Larry Moran

Nice quotes bornagain Jack Jones

Thank you BA. Andre

Andre, for what it is worth, which may not be much, I think you comments are right on the mark for the vast majority of times, and are certainly far more coherent than any atheist's comments bornagain

Lartanner It is a good thing that I am my own man. Don't care what other people think of me. Andre

Why Do We Invoke Darwin? By Philip Skell Excerpt:,,, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/ Op-Ed: Time to Ditch Natural Selection? - Oct. 3, 2015 Excerpt: If NS were a law of nature, we would see every organism trending along the same trajectory: for instance, bearing more offspring. But NS explains opposite outcomes with equal ease (see Oct 1 entry for examples). It explains why the sloth is slow and the cheetah is fast. It explains why the roundworm is round and the flatworm is flat. It explains why some animals bear lots of young and why some bear few. We are led to believe that NS explains up, down, in, out and sideways by some mysterious, aimless force, and whatever results was caused by NS. For some time now, I have been calling NS the “Stuff Happens Law” because NS is simply a restatement of the phrase, “stuff happens.” The Stuff Happens Law is the polar opposite of scientific explanation. NS, therefore, is a charade, amounting to giving up and saying, “We don’t know; que sera, sera.” Natural Selection Is a Post-Hoc Rationalization, Not a Cause read more here: http://crev.info/2015/10/op-ed-time-to-ditch-natural-selection/

Of related note, that physicists believe there should even be an overarching 'theory of everything' is a Theistic presupposition. That belief is not an atheistic presupposition:

Christ’s unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: The belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. a theory of everything), does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gb75eVQyt3wU0Pwcl5nes4N2axenxQKZa4pYxSSeGzk/edit

bornagain

We are told that Darwinian evolution explains the origin of life all the time. One RNA act upon another. They evolve into life. Poof. Upright BiPed

Andre, At first, I thought you were kidding but now I see you consider these serious responses. I wonder what your fellow ID proponents make of your comments. (I think you are all over the place and don't really know what you are saying.) LarTanner

Lartannar Has of course never heard of cosmic evolution neither has he heard of Larry Moran who believes evolution does explain OOL. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html Andre

If you want to know who and why consult philosophy, or just ask Darwinism. Andre

Lartanner ID does not explain who the designer is. Darwinism on the other hand does. Good old Natural selection. ID also does not explain why but Darwinian evolution does, good old survival of the fittest. What ID does try and answer is how. Does Darwinian evolution try and explain how? Nope your best answer is always an intelligent designer would not have done it that way. Andre

Lartanner said to Andre @32 "And I think we all agree that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, the existence of the universe, or the dynamics of human history. And so on." What's the theory of evolution that does not explain the origin of life? Evolutionists can't agree what the theory of evolution is. Jack Jones

Andre (32):

A theory that explains everything explains nothing….

Agreed. And I think we all agree that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, the existence of the universe, or the dynamics of human history. And so on. Now: Without snark, can you or any ID proponent say exactly what ID does NOT explain? LarTanner

A theory that explains everything explains nothing.... Andre

Hi everyone, There's one thing I really would like to fix about UD's definition of Darwinism in its glossary. The word "tenants" needs to be changed to "tenets." The name "Futuyama" needs to be amended too - it should be "Futuyma" - but that is a trifling error by comparison. Re Professor Larry Moran's quote from Mayr above: while it is certainly true that some Darwinists rejected the idea of junk DNA, it is also true that a large number had no trouble in accepting it. Certainly from 1980 onwards, the idea became very mainstream among evolutionary biologists (many of whom would consider themselves neo-Darwinists of one stripe or another). There are a number of posts on Evolution News and Views which contain quotes by Darwinian biologists who embraced the concept of junk DNA. Finally, I'm not claiming that Neo-Darwinism predicted the existence of junk DNA before it was even discovered. (I don't think Barry Arrington is making that claim either.) Rather, what I'm saying is that Neo-Darwinism is a highly malleable theory which is perfectly compatible with the existence of large amounts of junk DNA. I should add that the term "prediction" can mean "implication." At least one Darwinist said that Darwin's theory predicts the occurrence of large amounts of junk DNA. Here's what Francis Collins wrote in The Language of God in 2006 (as quoted by Barry Arrington in his previous post):

Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process.” That is exactly what is observed.

vjtorley

Jack Jones

Not only that, But people that go around squwaking that they are rationalists do not sound rational but Moronic.

Or...... moranic. ... Andre

UD, Larry Moran has a point. His theory does not carry sufficient scientific weight to have been properly factored into the New World Encyclopedia. As such, an addendum to the definition of Darwinism is called for. I suggest that we use the ominous code: RM+NS or RV+NS in our definition. While it can be said, and has been said by me repeatedly, that neutral mutations are not mutations that are disconsidered by natural selection, but are mutations that have been considered by natural selection, and have been found to offer neither advantage nor disadvantage to the organism. (I recognize that, according to theory, many of these mutations fall into the "junk DNA" where they are readily dismissed by natural selection, however, natural selection still rates them as inconsequential. And, on the rare occasion the mutation activates a segment of junk code, making it affect the phenotype, and so become consequential.) How do I help y'all understand the difference between "not considered" and "considered and found to be unimportant"? In the "C" programming language (and most others) there is a nice tool for this. We call it NULL. NULL does not equate to 0. There is zero selective value in a "neutral mutation", but the selective value is not NULL (disconsidered). As such, though the current definition puts a lot of weight on the power of selection for creativity, because selection plays a role in all mutation analysis, it is absolutely reasonable to view drift as part of the definition of Darwinism that has been provided. 'Still say, we need a better definition than quoting the New World Encyclopedia. bFast

Professor Moran @10 says "Lot’s of people challenge me on my blog and lots of people are rude and crude. You were banned because you spammed my blog with dozens of lengthy posts that were irrelevant. Just like you do here." Don't be Daft. The ID people posting on this blog can see that the people that are spamming away on your blog, are the people that are your followers, they can rant and rave at ID supporters with their angry rhetoric and you do not ban them. When people challenge you or your supporters and you do not like what they have to say, then you delete comments and/or block them. You are not really in a position to make accusations about spam with the way your followers carry on. Professor Moran@17 "I don’t agree with Ernst Mayr but I’d glad that ID proponents accept him as an authority. He states quite clearly that “Darwinians” oppose junk DNA. That’s the exact opposite of what many ID proponents claim. I don’t expect you to agree with me or with Ernst Mayr. I DO expect you represent the views of evolutionary biologists correctly. Is that too much to ask?" What has the junk dna debate got to do with the points I raised? I think the debate about Junk DNA is a red herring because the debate when it comes to design vs chance in biology starts with the origin of a first living organism or organisms, You and your chance evolutionary supporters are going to support whatever is found to be the case with the Junk DNA issue anyway. The issue for me is how life originated, Now as the law of Biogenesis shows that life does not arise spontaneously in nature then this shows that to get an initial living organism or organisms requires that we go beyond how nature operates and is not governed by natural law. When you appeal to purely natural causes for the origin of a first living organism then you are rejecting how nature is known to operate, whereas a person that accepts that you have to go outside of nature to a cause that is not governed by nature, is accepting how nature operates. You are rejecting knowledge and you believing your reasoning faculties are the result of chance does not ground reason. So it is funny how you use the tag rationalism for your posts. Not only that, But people that go around squwaking that they are rationalists do not sound rational but Moronic. Jack Jones

Larry Moran:

It’s clear that none of you actually think that neutral alleles and random genetic drift are part of “Darwinism” or you would have made sure to include it in your glossary definition.

LoL! Is that your argument? I wasn't part of that process, Larry, and I have always known- since reading darwin back in the early 70s- that drift was part of Darwinism

The evolutionary biologists who constructed the “Modern Synthesis” also didn’t think that drift and neutral alleles were an important part of evolution and that’s the version that ID endorses as the correct view of evolutionary theory.

You must be a mental midget, Larry, as I have explained that to you many times. NS is the only posited mechanism said to produce adaptations. Read Futuyma. No one has any evidence that drift can produce the appearance of design. Larry, UD doesn't speak for all IDists and I am not beholden to UD's glossary. Grow up. Virgil Cain

From the glossary: https://uncommondescent.com/glossary/

Though agreement is not universal on the parameters of the modern synthesis, many descriptions hold as basic (1) the primacy of natural selection as the creative agent of evolutionary change;

While natural selection is an important mechanism of adaptation, non-adaptive changes can be creative; hence, neutral theory is not encompassed in the definition given for Neodarwinism.

(2) gradualism (accumulation of small genetic changes);

By happenstance, evolutionary changes probably follow something like a scale-free pattern common to network evolution; mostly small changes, a few big changes, and the occasional revolutionary change. Again, this would not be encompassed in the conventional definition of Neodarwinism.

and (3) the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (changes within species) to macroevolutionary trends (changes about the species level, such as the origin of new designs and broad patterns in history).

There are some mechanisms that may only apply on the macroevolutionary scale; therefore, not part of the given definition of Neodarwinism. Zachriel

Well Moran, you can just as well consider me as a man on the street. As to being 'rigorous and scientific', I find that to be an interesting comment coming from a Darwinist. If any science has ever been unrigorous and unscientific in its approach it has been Darwinian evolution. Contrary to what you desperately want to believe Moran, Story telling IS CERTAINLY NOT rigorous science. Far from it, imaginary story telling is the antithesis of rigorous science. As Behe comments in some of his lectures:

"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html

A few more quotes:

"Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Michael Egnor Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God. But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines. I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor. - Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me …..” “[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”.” Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript. http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/main.htm "So numberless a multitude, and so great a variety of birds, beasts, fishes, reptiles, herbs, shrubs, trees, stones, metals, minerals, stars, and everyone of them plentifully furnished and endowed with all the qualifications requisite to the attainment of the respective ends of its creation, are productions of a wisdom too limitless not to be peculiar to God: ... which do all of them deserve that extensive exclamation of the Psalmist, “How manifold are thy works, 0 Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all.”" [Psalm 104:24] — Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry

bornagain

Virgil Cain says, Darwin refutes Moran: Gimme a break! We all know about those few sentences in Darwin's book. If you look carefully you can find all sorts of Darwin quotes that seem to support modern views of evolution. It's clear that none of you actually think that neutral alleles and random genetic drift are part of "Darwinism" or you would have made sure to include it in your glossary definition. The evolutionary biologists who constructed the "Modern Synthesis" also didn't think that drift and neutral alleles were an important part of evolution and that's the version that ID endorses as the correct view of evolutionary theory. You can't have it both ways. You can't go to some effort to define what you mean by "Darwinism" and then turn around and refute it by referring back to a few sentences in a 150 year-old book. Pick one position and defend it. Larry Moran

"Darwinism" refers to blind watchmaker evolution, Larry. That includes natural selection and drift. Virgil Cain

bornagain says,

Funny, a person on the street has no problem whatsoever knowing what someone means when they say Darwinian evolution. Namely, that all life arose via undirected material processes via common descent.

But here on Uncommon Descent you want to be more rigorous and scientific so a few years ago you had a discussion about how to define "Darwinism." You came up with the glossary entry on Darwinism. Is it wrong for me to assume that's what you mean when you talk about Darwinism on this blog? Is it wrong for me to assume that's what Barry Arrington means since he wrote the glossary entry? Larry Moran

scottH Is there a book on neutral theory anyone would recommend? There isn't a good book for students who are just learning about evolution but you could try any of the introductory evolutionary biology textbooks. Douglas Futuyma's book "Evolution" is excellent, but expensive. You could also try "Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution" by Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li. It was first published in 1991 and you may find a cheap version for sale on the internet. The Wikipedia article on Nearly-neutral Theory is a pretry good overview. Larry Moran

Larry Moran, actually I have a particular dislike for Mayr's supposedly 'scientific' method of shoehorning everything into the Darwinian narrative with homo erectus. In fact, because of such inherent bias that he has, I was a bit surprised that he would be so honest in admitting the non-scientific 'story telling' basis of Darwinian evolution. Because of the surprising honesty is why I like the quote, not because I respect his, ahem, 'science'.

Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens - 05/27/2009 - Creation Safaris: Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: "Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be." By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev200905.htm#20090527a Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001)

Of related note on junk DNA Funny, a person on the street has no problem whatsoever knowing what someone means when they say Darwinian evolution. Namely, that all life arose via undirected material processes via common descent. But, ironically, highly educated Darwinists now find it necessary to separate Darwinian evolution into different camps so as to protect it from falsification by junk DNA. Interestingly, the squabble now degenerates into how much junk DNA and natural selection makes you a true Darwinist and how much does not. I'm sure hard numbers for distinguishing true Darwinists from untrue Darwinists will be forthcoming in another 100 years or so. :) bornagain

Darwin refutes Moran:

Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions.- On the Origins of Species sixth edition chapter 4, end of paragraph 1

Virgil Cain

Jack Jone quotes Ernst Mayr and bornagain says "Nice quote." I'm glad we've established that you respect Ernst Mary as an authority on evolutionary biology because it may help you understand why Darwinists opposed junk DNA. Ernst Mary was one of the classic examples of a true Darwinian whose view of evolution was very much like the view that ID proponents share (see glossary entry on "Darwinism"). Scientists like Mayr did not "predict" junk DNA as Barry Arrington and other ID proponents incorrectly claim. They opposed it. Here's what Mayr says in his 2002 book "What Evolution Is" (p. 108).

A remarkably high proportion of the DNA in the chromosome seems not to perform an obvious function such as coding for RNAs and proteins. Such DNA, sometimes incorrectly referred to as "junk," is estimated for humans to be as much as 97 percent of the total DNA. This portion of the genome includes introns, repetitive sequences such as microsatellite DNA, and various kinds of "interspersed elements" such as Alu sequences. There is widespread belief among Darwinians that such apparently unnecessary DNA would have been eliminated long ago by natural selection if it did not have some, as of yet undiscovered, function. [my emphasis - LAM]. Indeed the introns have a recognized function, to keep the exons apart prior to the activation of a gene (translation of the DNA message into proteins). During the translation process the introns are excised prior to thee translation of a gene into proteins. Introns also contain many regulatory elements (DNA motifs that serve as binding sites for transcription regulation genes) and are thought to enhance eukaryotic genetic complexity via alternative splicing through both cis- and trans-acting elements.

I don't agree with Ernst Mayr but I'd glad that ID proponents accept him as an authority. He states quite clearly that "Darwinians" oppose junk DNA. That's the exact opposite of what many ID proponents claim. I don't expect you to agree with me or with Ernst Mayr. I DO expect you represent the views of evolutionary biologists correctly. Is that too much to ask? Larry Moran

Larry or anyone for that matter, Is there a book on neutral theory anyone would recommend? Thanks scottH

Dr JDD says ...

Yet the reality that they purport over the years is exactly this: “We would expect neutral drift to accumulate non functional sequence and remnants of past genetic sequences in the genome”

This is not correct. Evolutionary biologists, in general, expect that nonfunctional DNA will be eliminated from genomes because of its cost in replication. The sequences are clearly detrimental at some level and there's no compensating selective advantage. This is, in fact, what happens in bacterial genomes and many protozoa and algae. The surprise in the late 1960s was the fact that genomes of multicellular species had lots of extra DNA that appeared to be junk. It was only after the development of Nearly-Neutral Theory and the new-found appreciation of random genetic drift that population geneticists could show that junk DNA cannot be eliminated by negative selection in species with small effective population sizes. The current situation is that evolutionary biologists do not "expect" non-functional sequences to accumulate in all species. When it is seen (e.g. mammals) it always seems to correlate with small effective population sizes as explained by modern non-Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Darwinism" or "Neo-Darwinism" cannot explain the observations.

And when we find function: “We would expect natural selection to get rid of unnecessary and junk / non-functional regions of the genome or find use for these regions”

See above. I don't expect you to agree with evolutionary biologists. However, I DO expect you to represent their views accurately. Is that too much to ask? Larry Moran

Philip S. Skell put the unscientific 'historical narrative' aspect of Darwinian evolution like this:

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word evolution as a 'narrative gloss' in peer-reviewed literature:

Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

Dr. Gauger comments on evolution being used as a 'narrative gloss' here:

Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin

Dr. Wells comments here:

Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/

Darwinian evolution is simply hardly ever allowed to be seriously questioned in the literature:

"Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. ... The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/second_thoughts098141.html

A few more notes:

Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9znyGQo2QE "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988)

bornagain

Nice quote Jack Jones:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." Ernst Mayr - Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought - Originally published July 2000 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/

In other words, Darwinian evolution is assumed as true from the outset and contrary experimental findings are not allowed to challenge it, but are instead explained away with a 'narrative', i.e. a 'just so story'. bornagain

Dr JDD, that is exactly it. Because it is 'mainstream', the theory of naturalistic evolution gets to play games that other theories do not, just like the reindeer in the song. But as Dawkins and Coyne would have it, 'we would expect the carrying costs of junk DNA to cause them to be 'naturally out-selected', but when we DO end up finding them, they clearly point to the fact that blind chance, and NOT design, was the determining factor.' soundburger

"If we find that the genome is full of junk, it is as we would expect from a deterioration from a fully functional starting point that was designed. If we find function for most of the genome, it is expected from a designer." State the above, and expect slating and mockery from materialists as to how unscientific this approach is and proves that design is a cop out as cannot be disproved. Yet the reality that they purport over the years is exactly this: "We would expect neutral drift to accumulate non functional sequence and remnants of past genetic sequences in the genome" And when we find function: "We would expect natural selection to get rid of unnecessary and junk / non-functional regions of the genome or find use for these regions" Dr JDD

Jack Jone says,

I am banned for challenging him in my posts but people on his side can write absolute drivel against ID proponents and personally attack them but he allows it.

Lot's of people challenge me on my blog and lots of people are rude and crude. You were banned because you spammed my blog with dozens of lengthy posts that were irrelevant. Just like you do here. Larry Moran

Barry, I do agree with Carpathian @ 5 that we should at least post something here at UD about what intelligent design is. We seem in desperate need of something like that. Maybe Carpathian would be willing to help out. Mung

My guess is that, for the second argument, Larry is saying that what Dawkins and Coyne have done is blanketed junk DNA within an evolutionary framework AFTER the fact. His use of the word 'predicted' places him in a different position from Dawkins and Coyne, who merely seem to be saying that junk DNA 'could have been predicted' or should be considered 'predictable' (and thus evidentiary). If so, it is little more than a pyrrhic victory, as he has caught Coyne and Dawkins offerring a just-so story, of how even something that was initially counterintuitive to the idea of natural selection (as Larry explains in his post) can, after its discovery, be displayed as a shining example of the impeccability of the theory. soundburger

"How can we test the claim that natural selection and drift produced ATP synthase?" Mr Cain, When I posted this quote, then Moran went ballistic. Marc Kirschner (1945) Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School Web Amazon GBS AV In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. Missing Links The Boston Globe October 23, 2005 Larry Moran then told me to go through Books on Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and find where evolution is not discussed. I told him that his problem is with Marc Kirschner, and I also went on and gave him the words of H Allen Orr which backed up what Kirschner said and I gave him the words of Ernst Mayr who said "Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." I told him that if the word evolution is used then it must be in a generic sense or as narrative gloss. I said to him, that You would not use a term in one sense and then try and conflate it with another sense. would you Professor?. (I had already called him out before of doing that with his broad use of the term Creationist for ID proponents and then trying to conflate that in a narrow sense of how it is commonly understood) He deleted the comment and had deleted other comments of mine, and that of some other people who were not being rude in their comments. I am banned for challenging him in my posts but people on his side can write absolute drivel against ID proponents and personally attack them but he allows it. The fact that they have to be so slippery in how they use the term Evolution and play their bait and switch game should be a red flag to people who are honest and not dogmatists when it comes to the evolutionary position that they hold. Jack Jones

Carpathian- Unfortunately your side has nothing to outline. And Zachriel is the last person to say anything. How can we test the claim that natural selection and drift produced ATP synthase? I know how we test the claim that ATP synthase is intelligently designed-> Eliminate necessity and chance, as per Newton, Occam, parsimony and the EF, and see if it matches some specification, in this case it has several different components that are configured together allow for a required function. Virgil Cain

Barry, This might be an opportunity for both sides to have their positions outlined on one site. Could you ask Larry Moran or Zachriel or someone familiar with the evolution position to post an always linked overview? That way, both sides could be assured of what they are debating. Carpathian

What I typically say is if all of us on here with advanced degrees don't understand Darwinian evolution, then how did the public schools and other schooling fail us? I thought that every child was supposed to graduate understanding Darwinian evolution, and that it is important for the schools to succeed here. Is what Larry arguing is that he knows something important that we should know and that all new high school grads should also? groovamos

I am still waiting for him to show me which chemical elements are free. BTW... When I responded back and forth with him and humiliated him then he started deleting my comments and blocked me. Jack Jones

I can't wait to see who Larry channels next! Mung

Larry has nothing. The science has passed him by and he is left with hollow rhetoric and imagination. It's a fascinating time to be alive as Darwinism crumbles to the ground under the science and its apostles are reduced to cartoon characters. Larry is Monty Python's Black Knight guarding the bridge. His arms and legs are chopped off and he is surrounded by a pool of his own blood but he fights on all the while claiming victory (Larry desperately needs that irreducibly complex blood clotting mechanism for which he has no explanation). Fight on, Larry. At least you're entertaining as a comic if pathetic as a scientist. Florabama