Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Paul Braterman at The Conversation, we learn stuff like:

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

Actually, string theory and multiverse theories are elaborate theories too; there is just no evidence for them. It simply isn’t the case, as Braterman claims, that the word “theory” in science means that the evidence base is vast or strong or even that it exists.  And

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Has this guy never heard of convergent evolution?  Lots of people have.

And how about this:

Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action. More.

Yes, that’s called design. And so?

The late Will Provine (1942–2015) used to note that creationist students tend to know more about evolution than their “just shoot the shot, pass, and forget it” peers (By Design or by Chance, p. 141). Seminars at churches are more informative than hanging out at pot shops and malls.

Note: Provine was also absolutely clear that teaching modern Darwinism meant teaching nihilism but he never fibbed about that:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

One concern is that if Darwinians cannot reach their social control goals peaceably, they will resort to other methods.

See also: Teaching evolution to creationist students: Why would anyone who was embarking on teaching evolution as a serious project in good faith try to involve a virulently anti-religious figure like Dawkins in the argument?

Tales of the Tone Deaf, featuring dim profs writing in dozy journals about why people doubt Science and how to fix them.

and

Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Comments
EricMH- You are now moving the goalposts. One definition for "evolution" is a mere change in allele frequency over time.ET
August 10, 2017
August
08
Aug
10
10
2017
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
@17, I look different than my parents. Is that evolution? Some people are born more intelligent and attractive than their parents, who may in turn have more intelligent and attractive children. Is that evolution? If that is what biologists mean, then evolution is the most uninteresting idea in the world. Evolution is interesting because it is meant to explain how we get beneficial traits in the first place. The experiments you mention do not show new traits emerging. At best, existing traits are damaged, changing the population's fitness for their environment, such as the sickle cell mutation. But, this damaging form of adaptation is not evidence of evolution. For example, a car can 'evolve' into a shelter by removing functionality. But, a shelter cannot evolve into a car except by adding functionality. The latter case is the only kind of evolution of interest, and I do not know of any evidence that it occurs. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see it.EricMH
August 10, 2017
August
08
Aug
10
10
2017
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Belfast- so what? EricMH said:
for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence.
My examples fit that billET
August 10, 2017
August
08
Aug
10
10
2017
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
ET @ 14 They did not evolve it in a Darwinian sense, by random chance. They 'evolved' because the DNA contains within itself a mechanism to get out of trouble. The first thing a bacteria does is move away from a hostile environmentBelfast
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Rvb @4. Please change the record.Belfast
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Anti-biotic resistance is a case of evolution. Lenski's long term evolutionary experiment has the current populations genetically different from the starting populations. One branch even evolved the ability to utilize citrate in the presence of O2. And that is not even a startET
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
@8, for pretty much any definition of evolution, I've had much difficulty finding the evidence. If you know of something I'd be interested to hear it.EricMH
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
You wait till rvb8 comes back, swinging ! He'll fix your unsupported fligths of fancy, DATCG... detailed point by detailed point. Isn't that right, rv ? Don't spare any of these 'know-nothing' creationists. By the way, how are your negotiations for the purchase of Tower Bridge going ?Axel
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
functions for circRNA, more function in what was ignorantly claimed as "JUNK" by neo-Darwinist ...
Circles reshaping the RNA world: from waste to treasure. Liu J1, Liu T1, Wang X1, He A2. Author information Abstract A new type of RNAs was identified from genes traditionally thought to express messenger or linear ncRNA (noncoding RNA) only. They were subsequently named as circRNAs (circular RNAs) due to the covalently closed structure. Accumulating studies were performed to explore the expression profile of circRNAs in different cell types and diseases, the outcomes totally changed our view of ncRNAs(non-coded or previously claimed as "junk" by Darwinist), which was thought to be junk by-products in the process of gene transcription, and enriched our poor understanding of its underlying functions. The expression profile of circRNAs is tissue-specific and alters across various stages of cell differentiation. The biological function of circRNAs is multi-faceted, involving five main features (sponge effect, post-transcriptional regulation, rolling circle translation, circRNA-derived pseudogenes and splicing interference) and varying differently from the locations, binding sites and acting modes of circRNAs. The regulating role of circRNAs is not isolated but through an enormous complicated network involving mRNAs, miRNAs and proteins. Although most of the potential functions still remain unclear, circRNAs have been proved to be ubiquitous and critical in regulating cellular processes and diseases, especially in cancers, from the laboratory to the clinic. Herein, we review circRNAs' classification, biogenesis and metabolism, their well-studied and anticipated functions, the current understanding of the potential implications of circRNAs in tumorigenesis and cancer targeted therapy.
CircRNA paper link... Circles reshaping the RNA world: from waste to treasure. DATCG
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
The claim of pseudogenes as "JUNK" by neo-Darwinist Ken Miller overturned...
"Now a new paper in Genome Biology and Evolution, “Evolutionary Constraints in the ?-Globin Cluster: The Signature of Purifying Selection at the ?-Globin (HBD) Locus and Its Role in Developmental Gene Regulation,” argues that the beta-globin pseudogene is not broken, but in fact performs an important function in regulating gene expression."
Again, claims of "JUNK" were based on faulty assumptions and ignorance, not research and trumpeted as evidence for neo-Darwinism against Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design predicted more function would be found in erroneously named "JUNK" DNA. Function was found. Function of inappropriately named pseudogene found... Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust Will more research of "pseudogenes" find possible functions? Yes... Example of pseudogene research pulled from PUBMED list of Pseudogene Function...
PTEN pseudogene (PTENP1) has a tumor suppressive role in multiple cancers. However, its involvement in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains largely unknown. In this study, we set out to identify the role of PTENP1 in the development of ESCC.
Research Paper on PTEN pseudogene... Pseudogene PTEN research List of Papers searched for "Pseudogene Function" Pseudogene Function current list of Research and growing Intelligent Design predicted much more function. Darwinist Miller stated emphatically no function in pseudogene was evidence against Intelligent Design. As more research is done, more function critical to regulatory functions of life - suppressing tumors for example - are being found. It will be interesting to continue to follow Pseudogene functionality in future research.DATCG
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
ID predictions...
Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis): (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
There's evidence of all 4 Design predictions. 1) The immune system, blood clotting, network communications systems, repair systems, Ribosome, Nuclear Pore Complex, the Dr. Behe's IC Bacterial flagellum, etc., etc. 2) Cambrian Explosion (see Dr. Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt) 3) Common Design found through out all organisms, ATP Synthase for example 4) the failed prediction of Darwinist claims of 98% "JUNK DNA has turned into a spectacular success so far for Intelligent Design's prediction that "JUNK" DNA will have much function. Every single day in scientific journals around the world more and more function is found in the once hailed 98% "JUNK" claims by Darwinist. Link for Table 2 and... ID Predictions Also from same article, Table 3, Examining the Evidence...
Table 3. Examining the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion): (1) Language-based codes can be revealed by seeking to understand the workings of genetics and inheritance. High levels of specified complexity and irreducibly complexity are detected in biological systems through theoretical analysis, computer simulations and calculations (Behe & Snoke, 2004; Dembski 1998b; Axe et al. 2008; Axe, 2010a; Axe, 2010b; Dembski and Marks 2009a; Dembski and Marks 2009b; Ewert et al. 2009; Ewert et al. 2010; Chiu et al. 2002; Durston et al. 2007; Abel and Trevors, 2006; Voie 2006), “reverse engineering” (e.g. knockout experiments) (Minnich and Meyer, 2004; McIntosh 2009a; McIntosh 2009b) or mutational sensitivity tests (Axe, 2000; Axe, 2004; Gauger et al. 2010). (2) The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors. (Meyer, 2004; Lonnig, 2004; McIntosh 2009b) (3) Similar parts are commonly found in widely different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. (Davison, 2005; Nelson & Wells, 2003; Lönnig, 2004; Sherman 2007) (4) There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for “junk-DNA.” Examples include recently discovered surprised functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. (Sternberg, 2002, Sternberg and Shapiro, 2005; McIntosh, 2009a)
ENCODE is evidence ID predictions are solidly on right track versus failure of neo-Darwinism's blind, non-scientific and ignorant claims at the time that 98% of DNA was "JUNK." The failed Darwinian prediction of 98% "JUNK" DNA has blown up so bad, an angry Dan Graur is on the war path. Why? As he famously stated," If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” For any readers, take note. The stakes are high. Design predicts more function will be found in misnamed "JUNK" DNA regions. The 98% Myth has died. What will happen if Dan Graur's latest prediction is wrong? What will neo-Darwinist then claim? As progress continues to mount on discovery of more function in non-coded regions, expect more heads to explode.DATCG
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
EricMH:
I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out.
It depends on how you define evolution. For some definitions of evolution, there most certainly does exist "evidence for evolution."Mung
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
I know how to slam dunk a basketball, but I don't know how to slam dunk a creationist. I'll need to read that article.Mung
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
rvb8:
we believe, and the evidence suggests, fish evolved into land dwelling creatures between 325-375 million years ago
There isn't any evidence such a transformation is even possible. What mechanism did it? How can that mechanism be tested to see if it is capable of producing such a transformation? All Shubin found was an organism that was adapted to its environment. And what he found doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Yours is an untestable claim and as such not part of science.ET
August 9, 2017
August
08
Aug
9
09
2017
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Please see my comments 34-35 at https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/well-we-dont-hear-this-from-brit-toffs-every-day-darwin-was-a-fraud/ It doesn't take a PhD to see the validity of ID ... and the absurdity of purposeful, goal directed machines such as the human body to come about through magical processes happening in "Deep Time." I've just given you a very good example of research being conducted under the umbrella of ID.DonJohnsonDD682
August 8, 2017
August
08
Aug
8
08
2017
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
My suggestion now is to attack this discovery as inconsequential. However attacking this solid evidence is just that, an attack. It is not actually positive evidence for design. Please try some/any original research, sometime, somewhere, anywhere!rvb8
August 8, 2017
August
08
Aug
8
08
2017
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
ET, we believe, and the evidence suggests, fish evolved into land dwelling creatures between 325-375 million years ago. We must find sedimentary rocks of around this age, which have freshwater flora and fauna. Freshawater being imporatant as it was probably a more stable secluded environment. We find this predicted environment in arctic islands north of Canada. After several years all of these predictions based on evolutionary theory, produce the expected fossil; Tiktaalik, ID predicts what exactly?rvb8
August 8, 2017
August
08
Aug
8
08
2017
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
Evolution may be a theory in the general sense but there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. Science requires testable claims and there doesn't seem to be any with respect to the evolution of protein machines, for example. Natural selection could never produce the breeds of dogs nor corn nor edible potatoes. Natural selection is only good at weeding out the diseased and the deformed.ET
August 8, 2017
August
08
Aug
8
08
2017
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
I've always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I've never found out.EricMH
August 8, 2017
August
08
Aug
8
08
2017
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply