Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Podcast: Darwin’s Predictions

Here is an interesting podcast I was interviewed for last year. Go here and click on the green podcast symbol to listen to a discussion about the origins debate and Darwin’s predictions.
Another non-prediction of Darwinism,,,, codes on top of codes: Scientists Say They’ve Found a Code Beyond Genetics in DNA - 2006 Excerpt: The genetic code specifies all the proteins that a cell makes. The second code, superimposed on the first, sets the placement of the nucleosomes, miniature protein spools around which the DNA is looped. The spools both protect and control access to the DNA itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html bornagain77
Dr Hunter, I know it is not as new as the New Scientist says, still I though you could add this to your list: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627594.000-evolution-gave-flawed-eye-better-vision.html Alex73
Dr. Hunter, I am a bit mystified as to the use of the word "code" within biology; In the previous post they alluded to "only" a second code being discovered within the genome, yet in these following papers reference is made to multiple codes: Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes.... the present findings support the view that protein-coding regions can carry abundant parallel codes. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/405.full The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Trifonov EN. - 1989 Excerpts: Nucleotide sequences carry genetic information of many different kinds, not just instructions for protein synthesis (triplet code). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673451 Here is the triplet code: The Genetic Code (Triplet Code) http://library.thinkquest.org/C0123260/basic%20knowledge/images/basic%20knowledge/RNA/genetic%20code.jpg Thus my question Dr. Hunter is, Is there really only one second code, or is there more than one? Or is it simply that they have used the word "code" in two different ways and both views are correct? bornagain77
Dr, Hunter, Darwinism surely did not predict this developement: Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed - May 2010 Excerpt: In Nature itself, Heidi Ledford led off with an article called “The code within the code.”1 Tejedor and Valcarcel followed with “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code.2 Then the main dish was the paper by the University of Toronto Team led by Benjamin J. Blencowe and Brendan J. Frey, “Deciphering the splicing code.”3,,,The paper is a triumph of information science that sounds reminiscent of the days of the World War II codebreakers. Their methods included algebra, geometry, probability theory, vector calculus, information theory, code optimization, and other advanced methods. One thing they had no need of was evolutionary theory, which was never mentioned in the paper. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201005.htm#20100506a Researchers Crack 'Splicing Code,' Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity - May 2010 Excerpt: Frey and Blencowe attribute the success of their project to the close collaboration between their team of talented computational and experimental biologists. "Understanding a complex biological system is like understanding a complex electronic circuit. Our team 'reverse-engineered' the splicing code using large-scale experimental data generated by the group," Frey said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505133252.htm Nature Reports Discovery of "Second Genetic Code" Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that "95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases.",,, The article reports that the distinction we normally see in human technology between hardware and software breaks down in biology, where molecules like RNA can both carry messages and help process those messages — a "second genetic code," or the "splicing code": http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/nature_reports_discovery_of_se.html bornagain77
Of coarse his biggest prediction was intermediates would be found in good enough numbers to justify his theory. Just too few people looking in few areas. This did not happen. It got worst. While not a prediction he did insist women were biologically intellectually inferiour to men. so having women in high science would not of been his prediction. I remember he wrote retarded people were hairier then others because of his regression idea. Being retarded was being closer to our ape identity and so the hair would follow in heaps. The thing that he did admit is that his theory is based on the presumption of another study. Geology. He said without the geology his biology is worthless. Is it legal in 'science" to base one field of study on a unrelated field? The best way to put to the ashheap of history evolution is to have people read his two books. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply