Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News Science

Prof: Darwin’s followers raise ID’s status by attacking it

Spread the love

Bob Shedinger Headshot In “The Biologist’s Dilemma,” Robert Shedinger, associate profesor of religion at Luther College (Iowa), observes,

Biologists face a real dilemma in their ongoing debate with proponents of intelligent design theory. While on the one hand they would like to simply dismiss intelligent design, denigrating it as religion dressed up as science and therefore unworthy of their serious consideration, they at the same time can’t help but engage the literature of the intelligent design community in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, thus raising the scientific status of the very theory they constantly dismiss as unscientific!

It is clear that those who treat ID with the greatest contempt are those with the most at stake in terms of professional identity and social status. In this highly charged polemical environment, one has to ask what happens to the pursuit of truth. If truth is the first casualty of war, we must assume that the ideological war raging between the biological establishment and the ID movement may be overriding the attempt to actually answer the question: How did life emerge on earth and diversify into the millions of species we see all around us? It is not controversial to suggest that this polemical environment has led ID proponents to caricature evolutionary theory and overplay the evidence for intelligent design. But can the same be said for the biological establishment? As controversial as it may seem, my research over the past year leads me to answer in the affirmative. Truth has been subordinated to ideology on this most profound of issues. The question now becomes: Can the pursuit of truth ever be recovered? More.

Actually, Darwin’s followers are falling by their own deadweight. They have everything except credibility among the well-informed.

It’s getting so that flakking for Darwin is a sign of either being poorly informed or just being an airhead generally. Stay tuned.

See also: Non-Darwinian biologist Rupert Sheldrake takes on Darwinian atheist Daniel Dennett (Says Dawkins’ selfish gene is past its sell-by date.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

31 Replies to “Prof: Darwin’s followers raise ID’s status by attacking it

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    News,

    It will help to enumerate CL’s list of top ten problems for evolutionary materialism, from

    http://www.discovery.org/f/11121

    Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.

    Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.

    Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures.

    Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations.

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution.

    Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life.”

    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry.

    Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry.

    Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species.

    Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA.”

    That is a significant list, and one that speaks to the longstanding UD pro-darwinism essay challenge.

    KF

  2. 2
    Hangonasec says:

    OK, I’ll saddle up for a quick gallop …

    Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.

    An issue primarily for advocates of the ‘Primordial soup’, then, which is certainly not everybody. Meanwhile the ID mechanism is …

    Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.

    And don’t particularly need to – it is almost certainly a post-replicative assemblage. And the ID mechanism is …

    Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures.

    And hence truly IC structures will not be found in nature. There are numerous ways in which apparent IC can arise, and ID needs to address these and eliminate the alternative explanation. Meanwhile, the ID mechanism is …

    Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations.

    And yet it doesn’t struggle to keep them there? Heh. Something of a failure to appreciate the yin/yang nature of reproductive differential, here. Still, drift can have a dampening effect, for sure, but does not eliminate NS, and substantially opens up the capacity of the evolutionary mechanism beyond a simplistic ‘RV+NS’ scenario.

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution.

    It does not exactly oppose it either.

    Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life.”

    Yet it has yielded a predominately treelike structure, into which LGT events naturally fall. Evolution by LGT is still evolution.

    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry.

    Convergent evolution is no challenge to ‘Darwinism’, since it does not depend upon an infinity of possible solutions. And the logic of common descent remains very clearly written in the genes, most especially if one looks at the many markers that are almost devoid of homoplasy.

    Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry.

    No they don’t. Common ancestry does not predict embryonic identity.

    Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species.

    ‘Darwinism’ is not directly concerned with modes of dispersal. You want a real problem with biogeography, ask a YEC! Meanwhile, the ID explanation is …

    Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA.”

    It makes me laugh how the Junk argument is used by opponents, apparently in complete ignorance of the history of the topic. Junk DNA was originally resisted by ‘Darwinians’, but Ohno’s genetic load argument became (and remains) compelling. But now, those self-same ‘Darwinians’ are accused of clinging to a failed paradigm in the face of (still limited) functional evidence – provided by other ‘Darwinians’! At least it shows that (in contrast to ID) evidence can change minds, though mine remains in the ‘mostly junk’ camp pending demonstration of a decent volume of functional sequence, addressing how the genetic load argument is circumvented by it.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are the links kf:

    The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution – Casey Luskin – 2015
    Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91101.html
    Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91111.html
    Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91121.html
    Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91131.html
    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91151.html
    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91161.html
    Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91171.html
    Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91181.html
    Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91191.html

  5. 5
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77 (from 1st link):

    Those who harbor doubts about Darwinism need not be terrified by academic bullies who pretend there is no scientific debate to be had.

    Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

    ‘Darwinism’ has no more to do with the origin of life than ‘Newtonism” has to do with the origin of gravity.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Junk DNA Argument Of Darwinists – a short history
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91191.html

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    One day soon, Zack, your naturalist cult, which denies the ubiquitous evidence of incredibly sophisticated design, throughout the word and at every scale, will justifiably become a byword for wilful madness of a particularly incomprehensible order, replacing your metaphor of belief that the world is flat.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘Darwinism’ has no more to do with the origin of life”,,,

    So Do you believe, as Darwin did, that God created the first life and the universe?

    Though denying that God had a direct hand in creating species, he did nonetheless indicate that God created the natural laws of the cosmos, including the laws of evolutionary development. He also interpolated a statement about a Creator breathing life into one or a few (primitive) organisms into the 1860 edition of Origin.
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....n_god.html

    Moreover, Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, is rife with (bad) theology:

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    (bad) theology continues to be infused in Darwinian thought to this day:

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

  9. 9
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: your naturalist cult, which denies the ubiquitous evidence of incredibly sophisticated design, throughout the word and at every scale, will justifiably become a byword for wilful madness of a particularly incomprehensible order, replacing your metaphor of belief that the world is flat.

    Perhaps, though that still doesn’t salvage the primordial soup argument.

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Should the top 10 have been posted on the Casey Luskin OP?

    In any case, this OP was an interesting item. The author understands some of the critical issues – most importantly, that the science community continues to raise ID’s status by engaging in debate.

    We see the same thing here on UD every day. We see passionate arguments defending evolution against the supposed, non-threat of ID. Anyone should be able to see the irony.

    The claim is that there is “no controversy”. But as the author points out:

    in recent years, every one of the following scientific journals has published book reviews or essays engaging the work of the intelligent design community: The American Biology Teacher, BIOS, BioScience, Biosystems, Evolution, Genetics, Integrative and Comparative Biology, Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, Journal of Statistical Physics, Nature, Palaios, Philosophy of Science, Physics in Perspective, Quarterly Review of Biology, Science, and Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

    Again, ID is supposedly “dead”, “irrelevant” and meaningless. We have dozens of essays in peer-reviewed scientific journals to prove that. 🙂

    It is clear that those who treat ID with the greatest contempt are those with the most at stake in terms of professional identity and social status.

    That does explain the intense interest from the anti-ID community. But we also see, quite frequently, claims from evolutionary biology which are laughable and yet mainstream science continues to take them seriously. So, I can understand a concern for social status. Will anyone really get much social prestige as an evolutionary story-teller? Does anyone really want to go around with the personality profile of some of the angry atheists we see on UD so frequently? I wouldn’t think that being a disciple of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or P.Z. Myers would do much for one’s social status. I guess it depends on which social group one is interested in.

    But again, ironically, the same anti-IDer has to explain that hours are spent engaging in dialogue and arguments against pseudo-science from supposed ignorant and uneducated IDers. What does that say about anti-ID people?

    Interestingly, when one steps outside the realm of the biological establishment, one finds far more sympathetic engagements with ID. Stewart Wolf, a medical doctor, writing in the pages of the journal Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, takes a rather positive view of Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box.” Likewise, physicists Robert Ehrlich and Leo P. Kadanoff, writing in the journals Physics in Perspective and the Journal of Statistical Physics respectively, engage ID ideas as if they represent legitimate scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution. Kadanoff makes clear that he does not accept ID (“not yet anyway”), but he thinks the mode of argument engaged in by ID theorists “is fully within the traditions of science.”

    More and more scientists are recognizing the value of ID. This doesn’t get reported much, but it’s definitely happening. A lot of people read Darwin’s Doubt, for example. The positive impact is quiet but strong.

    The biological establishment is cutting itself off from the real world. Generally well-educated (and biologists who know only their narrow scientific field are not well-educated) and intelligent people know that the materialist creation story is absurd and simply doesn’t work. Trying to engage an evolutionist in a discussion on human values, meaning, purpose, education, culture, morality, spiritual aspirations, global concerns, religion, philosophy – among many other topics, reveals the emptiness and inadequacy of the whole thing. Reductionism destroys human life – it’s anti-human. People will eventually realize that.

  11. 11
    logically_speaking says:

    Zachriel,

    “Perhaps, though that still doesn’t salvage the primordial soup argument”.

    Yeah that naturalist/atheist/evolutionary idea of a primordial soup making life emerge is dreadful.

    Perhaps you naturalist/atheist/evolutionists should stop using words that imply design, soups are intelligently designed.

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    ‘Perhaps, though that still doesn’t salvage the primordial soup argument.
    Perhaps, though that still doesn’t salvage the primordial soup argument.’
    ————————-

    Don’t follow you, Zack. That’s been proved to be nonsense on stilts.

  13. 13
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: Don’t follow you

    “Problem 1” was claimed to be an argument concerning “Darwinism”, but it wasn’t. Darwin’s theory concerned the evolution of life, not the origin of life; just as Newton’s theory concerned the motions of masses due to gravity, not the origin of gravity.

  14. 14
    velikovskys says:

    ls:
    Perhaps you naturalist/atheist/evolutionists should stop using words that imply design, soups are intelligently designed.

    Designed perhaps, intelligently not so much.

    Soup
    2.
    a substance or mixture perceived to resemble soup in appearance or consistency.
    “the waves and the water beyond have become a thick brown soup”

  15. 15
    ppolish says:

    The appearance of soup. Not real soup.

  16. 16
    velikovskys says:

    ppolish:

    The appearance of soup. Not real soup.

    True,just like the primordial soup only resembled real soup since only supernatural chicken and noodles existed at that time.

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    Z & VS (& H), it is normal for neo-Darwinian evo or some variant thereof to be presented to students in College or HS with some stuff on OOL, so in the real world there is a connexion whatever datum lines are convenient. Second, as the Smithsonian Tree of life often seen at UD shows, OOL is the root of the tree, which would make it highly relevant to the rest. Next, the OP speaks of the movement, by talking to Darwin’s followers; i.e. that includes CRD’s speculations about warm salty ponds and those who took that up from the 1920’s with Oparin etc. Which continues down to today. Where also that intelligent design is a serious candidate at OOL transforms one’s estimates and evaluations thereafter. And, you will see that above I took time to point to the evolutionary materialist view that takes in all this and then some. Problems 1 and 2 are highly material, and in fact bring to focus the issue of attempted origin of FSCO/I by sparse blind search of huge config spaces. Back to focus, the issues are material and need to be addressed. KF

    PS: H, if by now you are not familiar with the fact that you exerted design methods to compose your comment there is not much to help you. More broadly, we see Venter et al showing us that molecular nanotech is feasible, something that should be familiar from a biochem or org chem lab working with syntheses of compounds, etc. Means is not an issue for design.

  18. 18
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Z, it is normal for neo-Darwinian evo or some variant thereof to be presented to students in College or HS with some stuff on OOL, so in the real world there is a connexion whatever datum lines are convenient.

    It’s an explanation of current understanding of biological origins. That doesn’t make it part of ‘Darwinism’.

    kairosfocus: Second, as the Smithsonian Tree of life often seen at UD shows, OOL is the root of the tree

    It’s an explanation of current understanding of biological origins. That doesn’t make it part of ‘Darwinism’.

    kairosfocus: Where also that intelligent design is a serious candidate at OOL transforms one’s estimates and evaluations thereafter.

    No. It’s not a serious candidate as it offers no testable model. “It’s too FSCO/I for a natural origin,” is not a testable model.

  19. 19
    ppolish says:

    “True,just like the primordial soup only resembled real soup since only supernatural chicken and noodles existed at that time.”

    Supernatural chicken & noodles lol. Where do guys come up with this stuff:) True Darwin disciples know it was the Creator’s Breath. The Origin of Species, final chapter, final verse.

  20. 20
    AnimatedDust says:

    So, Z,

    The very “testable model” framework by which you reject ID has as part of its intelligently designed rule book, an a priori exclusion of design; stated as the philosophical commitment to naturalism.

    Even when everything that we know about cause and effect points there.

    It’s not just your side’s claim that design isn’t present when it plainly is. It’s that the rules you profess unshakable allegiance to are flawed to prevent even the consideration of the possibility. (See Lewontin, Haldane et al as frequently quoted by KF)

    I cannot understand how you possibly think that to be scientific thinking, especially since out of the other side of your mouth you’ll sing platitudes about how important it is to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

    Everywhere except there.

    There must be parallel universes. Because I can’t be living in the same one where all we know about cause and effect, intelligent agency, system design, information searches and irreducible complexity means what it means…

    Except in the case of life.

    Utterly baffling. Talk about man becoming futile in his thinking.

  21. 21
    Zachriel says:

    AnimatedDust: The very “testable model” framework by which you reject ID has as part of its intelligently designed rule book, an a priori exclusion of design; stated as the philosophical commitment to naturalism.

    Huh? We subscribe to a methodological definition of science, and find the distinction between natural and supernatural to be poorly defined, and only useful as a heuristic.

    Sign on door: Absolutely demons allowed in the lab.

  22. 22
    velikovskys says:

    Supernatural chicken & noodles lol. Where do guys come up with this stuff:)

    Super Natural Cooking: Five Delicious Ways to Incorporate Whole and Natural Foods into Your Cooking [Paperback]
    Heidi Swanson (Author)

  23. 23
    velikovskys says:

    KF:
    Where also that intelligent design is a serious candidate at OOL transforms one’s estimates and evaluations thereafter.

    Without some actual knowledge of the goals and capacity of the intelligent designer, what is this transformation of the estimates and evaluations based on beyond conjectures? What would be the logical/ scientific basis for these conjectures?

  24. 24
    mike1962 says:

    Silver Asiatic: But again, ironically, the same anti-IDer has to explain that hours are spent engaging in dialogue and arguments against pseudo-science from supposed ignorant and uneducated IDers. What does that say about anti-ID people?

    No friends? No life? Nothin’ better to do? 😀

  25. 25
    Hangonasec says:

    BA77 @6 – there is not a word in that article about Ohno’s genetic load argument. Therefore, as a ‘short history’, it is lacking some vital ingredients – the origination of the whole concept, the initial skepticism and the reasoning that must still be addressed.

    Nor is there any mention of the ongoing controversy over ENCODE’s use of the word ‘function’. In another thread, gpuccio has been busy chastising Zachriel and DNA_Jock for their use of the term ‘function’ in relation to Szostak’s ATP binding assay. And yet that usage is precisely the way ‘function’ is defined by ENCODE: a genomic region is ‘functional’ if it shows up in a biochemical assay. Perhaps you could have a debate with gpuccio and reach a conclusion. Does binding = function?

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    Evolutionism doesn’t have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    Zacho:

    “It’s too FSCO/I for a natural origin,” is not a testable model.

    Sure it is as anyone can step up and try to demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce it. We already know that intelligent agencies can.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Hangonasec, sorry my mistake, I inadvertently posted the wrong link for “Junk DNA Argument Of Darwinists – a short history”: Thanks for bringing it up. Here is the corrected link:

    Junk DNA Argument Of Darwinists – a short history
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/14-TXfGxPu-3YeCHtLmxTmL4UZN90Odt135c59yTIFsw/edit

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Hangonasec in regards to Szostak’s man-made 1 in a trillion ATP binding you ask,

    “Does binding = function?”

    Functional is defined as:

    3. having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed:

    Whereas dysfunctional is defined as:

    1. not performing normally, as an organ or structure of the body; malfunctioning.

    By that definition of functional and dysfunctional, Szostak’s man-made 1 in a trillion ATP binding is found to be dysfunctional:

    This following paper found that Szostak’s man-made ‘protein’, (i.e. ATP binding), is disruptive, i.e. dysfunctional, when expressed in a cell:

    A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009
    Excerpt: “Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division.”
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0007385

    Strange Behavior: New Study Exposes Living Cells to Synthetic Protein – Dec. 27, 2012
    Excerpt: ,,,”ATP is the energy currency of life,” Chaput says. The phosphodiester bonds of ATP contain the energy necessary to drive reactions in living systems, giving up their stored energy when these bonds are chemically cleaved. The depletion of available intracellular ATP by DX binding disrupts normal metabolic activity in the cells, preventing them from dividing, (though they continue to grow).,,,
    In the current study, E. coli cells exposed to DX transitioned into a filamentous form, which can occur naturally when such cells are subject to conditions of stress. The cells display low metabolic activity and limited cell division, presumably owing to their ATP-starved condition.
    The study also examined the ability of E. coli to recover following DX exposure. The cells were found to enter a quiescent state known as viable but non-culturable (VBNC), meaning that they survived ATP sequestration and returned to their non-filamentous state after 48 hours, but lost their reproductive capacity.
    Further, this condition was difficult to reverse and seems to involve a fundamental reprogramming of the cell.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....143001.htm

    Of related note, it is good to realize how big 1 in 10^12 (one in a trillion) actually is:

    “The largest dump truck in the world would have to carry more than nine full loads to move a trillion grains of sand. A regular dump truck will have to make 150 trips.”
    http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2.....-trillion/

    How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html

  30. 30
    Hangonasec says:

    BA77

    3. having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed:

    That does not address the point of dispute between Zachriel/DNA_Jock and gpuccio, nor its relation to ENCODE.

    ENCODE do not use that definition. If you say “80% of the genome is functional”, that is by ENCODE’s definition, not yours. ENCODE do not assess utilitarian purpose, nor the question of design; they assess binding

    You offer a very unwieldy and operationally impractical definition for biological function – that it must perform a positive role (how judged?) for which it was designed (really?) in an organism (which organism)? It remains the case that, to be consistent, you should either agree with Zachriel at al (in order to concur with ENCODE: function = binding) or disagree (in which case trumpeting ‘80% function’ is premature to say the least).

    On the matter of Szostak’s protein in a living system, I offer the counter-example of experiments (Fisher et al), where synthetic proteins ‘functioned’ in an organism in 4 different ways, despite the fact that none of those functions was designed for (granted that folding was a design aim). So, if Szostak’s protein caused a problem for E coli, this is more than made up for by 4 different functional roles in the same organism demonstrated by the Fisher group (in the context of an artificially ‘dysfunctioned’ strain).

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    I’m quite comfortable with the definitions of functional and dysfunctional and am equally comfortable that Szostak’s man-made 1 in a trillion ATP binding is easily classified as dysfunctional. Sorry you disagree.

    As to your counter example I note with humor that dysfunctional mutation(s) was first introduced from which the strain(s) were ‘rescued’ by the designed protein(s),,,

    “Four different strains – ?serB, ?gltA, ?ilvA, and ?fes – were rescued by specific sequences from our library. Further experiments demonstrated that a strain simultaneously deleted for all four genes was rescued by co-expression of four novel sequences. Thus, cells deleted for ~0.1% of the E. coli genome (and ~1% of the genes required for growth under nutrient-poor conditions) can be sustained by sequences designed de novo.”

    Color me very unimpressed. The preexisting programming of the cell was able to make use of artificially introduced (and designed) information so as to ‘rescue’ the strains from disabling, i.e. dysfunctional, mutations.

    Contrary to what you seem to believe, the experiment screams design from beginning to end.

    That you would try to take comfort in such a ‘designed’ experiment is a sad testimony towards the state of empirical evidence for Darwinism and just how desperate Darwinists are to cling to any evidence whatsoever that they can remotely imagine supports there pseudo-scientific theory.

    It would be funny, but it’s just too sad and too common to be funny.

Leave a Reply