Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“The More We Find Out, The More Complicated Things Get”


As the truth becomes ever more clear, so too the mythology must become ever more powerful. As we learn more, we must deny more. They once said biology was made of simple building blocks, but as this BBC video shows in pixel-level detail, that was just another myth. So now we need a new one. I don’t know what the twenty first century’s origins theory will be, but it will be called evolution.  See more

Semi OT: Sir Paul Nurse: Organisms are information networks - video http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/nov/05/paul-nurse-life-information-networks Sir Paul Nurse won the 2001 Nobel prize for physiology for his work on the role of DNA in cell division and took up the presidency of the Royal Society at the end of 2010. He states, "Understanding how the different parts of the body process information and then distribute it is the next task facing modern biology,,," Biology faces a quantum leap into the incomprehensible - 2010 Physics had to come to terms with the transition from commonsense Newtonian theory to the counterintuitive world of relativity and quantum mechanics. Now it's biology's turn,, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/nov/12/biology-quantum-leap bornagain77
OT: Astrophysicist Hugh Ross - Scientific Evidences for the Christian Faith- video taken this October at Christ's Church of the Valley in San Dimas - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epDHo0qPdQ8 bornagain77
'Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness.' Somehow, I feel I should think, well, that's OK; in the end, it's the study of brute matter, so no real need for subtle - or more than erratically rational minds. But somehow it doesn't work like that. For one thing that brute matter turns out to be anything but gross and unsubtle, and the old, reductionist brigade find themselves in a totally new discipline, seemingly with untold dimensions of subtlety and beauty, for which they are as inapt as a chocolate fire-guard. Axel
OT: O Come, Emmanuel - (Piano/Cello) - ThePianoGuys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7ySn-Swwc bornagain77
Yes Eric, Shapiro is certainly winning no Darwinian friends with his forthright manner in exposing the gaping flaws in neo-Darwinism. I believe Jerry Coyne said something along the lines that he was 'ashamed' to have Shapiro as his colleague at the university in Chicago where they both work. But then again, I don't think Coyne realizes that for him to say that is actually a good thing for Shapiro. :) bornagain77
BA77: Great essay. Thanks for the link. I also note that the mentions the Central Dogma as part of the old, outdated understanding. This is something we were discussing here at UD a week or so ago. Eric Anderson
Of related note: Why the 'Gene' Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking - James Shapiro - 11/30/2012 Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: "genes are the basic units of all living things.",,, This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, A major challenge was Britten and Kohne's1968 discovery of massive amounts of repetitive DNA in certain genomes. Today, we know our DNA contains over 30 times as many base-pairs in repeats as it does in protein coding sequences. By the conventional view, if genes are the only important actors, then these surprisingly abundant "intergenic" repeats must constitute "junk DNA" and be "ultimate parasites" in the genome. As readers of this and other science blogs know well, the junk DNA idea has been challenged by the large-scale ENCODE project, designed to produce the "Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements" independently of theoretical prejudices. In its first few years, ENCODE has documented cell type-specific biochemical activity in over 80 percent of this repetitive DNA and known functions in 20 percent. The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene." In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled "Complexity of the Gene Concept." Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term. The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other "DNA elements" (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,, Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html bornagain77

Leave a Reply