Richard Dawkins Voted The World’s Top Thinker

I should have said, '...like QM and lots of stuff'. Axel

'Your only so called evidence for ID is that science cant yet explain how structures arose over the course of evolution.' What you utterly fail grasp, Joealtle, is that your promissory note, is unencashable, by definition. The parts would all have to evolve and the final click into place at precisely the same time. That doesn't even occur during the 'birth' of a creature, while its step-by-step evolution, we normally call, 'development'. Even God couldn't do that. Evolution implies development, which requires time and incremental growth. Did the rest of the flagellum just slowly develop and wait around in inchoate form until the last part clicked into place? That might have occurred, but only in a multiverse of infinite possibilities. Beyond implausible. Logically (and within a realistic scenario), it would have been impossible, due to the stark, functional interdependency of each part for the functioning of the whole. Mind you, your Covenanters of the Double Helix would simply dismiss such an objection on the grounds that, like a square circle and 'lots of stuff in QM', it's just COUNTER-INTUITIVE! God could make anything however complex and thoroughly interdependent all the parts, instantaneously, but evolution couldn't by definition. Take each word, 'irreducibly', and 'complex', and try to imagine the significance when they are put together in that sequence. As for Richie's being the world's greatest thinker, I'm not saying anything..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgq4Zre4JR4 Axel

Richard Dawkins is the world's greatest thinker. My first thought on seeing this: "Boy, I bet Stephen Hawking is pissed off!" Barb

CharlieD among the many bizarre things you have said today trying to protect your beloved neo-Darwinism from scrutiny, I found this one statement of yours truly bizarre:

Just make sure you remember to look both ways next time you cross the street, god isn’t going to stop a dump truck from flattening you no matter how hard you bang out your refutations of evolution.

And why do you think someone who believes in God, particularly Christians, should think that God will protect us if he steps in front of a dump truck or protect us even if we practice science rightly? Especially seeing that even Christ, Whom lived a perfectly righteous life, was not spared from suffering!

Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered,,,

I can assure you CharlieD that God allows many things to happen in my life that I would just a soon not happen. But whatever happens whether I personally like it or not, God is still God and I certainly am not! Music: Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk Natalie Grant - Held http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GDUBd2eWFw This is of related interest. The Contradiction of the Cross “On the cross, our false dependencies are revealed. On the cross, our illusions are killed off. On the cross, our small self dies so that the true self, the God-given self, can emerge. On the cross, we give up the fantasy that we are in control, and the death of this fantasy is central to acceptance. The cross is, above all, a place of powerlessness. Here is the final proof that our own feeble powers can no more alter life’s trajectory than a magnet can pull down the moon. Here is the death of the ego, of the self that insists on being in charge, the self that continually tries to impose its own idea of order and righteousness on the world. The cross is a place of contradiction. For the powerlessness of the cross, if fully embraced, takes us to a place of power. This is the great mystery at the heart of the Christian faith, from Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr., the mystery of the power of powerlessness. As long as I am preoccupied with the marshaling of my own feeble powers, there will be no way for God’s power to flow through me. As long as I am getting in my own way, I cannot live in the power of God’s way.” – Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, Pg 46-47 What Happened to the 12 Apostles of Jesus – How Did Jesus’ Disciples Die? http://biblenest.com/?p=192 Experiencing Jesus Christ – Francis Chan – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4928919 bornagain77

CharlieD, that was weak. Real weak. And didn't even make sense. Upright BiPed

correction: The primary piece of evidence, AT DOVER, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP evidence was just overturned: bornagain77

CharlieD you tap-dancing machine, :) ,, you may appreciate this. The primary piece of evidence trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP evidence was just overturned: Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the "Junk DNA" Argument Bites the Dust Casey Luskin April 23, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.html bornagain77

CharlieD you dogmatically claim:

Chimp and human DNA is still over 95% identical when looking at SNPs.

The figure you arrive at depends heavily on what starting assumptions you make.

Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html

But alas for you and your preferred atheistic worldview, even the extreme bias of neo-Darwinists could not withstand the onslaught of evidence that has been uncovered:

Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012 Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,, http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf Dawkins Self proclaimed Best Evidence for Darwinian Evolution (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/

And yet the Y chromosome is shown to not be evolving:

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists

moreover if one looks for differences, instead of just similarities as Darwinists do, differences you will find:,,

Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

Moreover ORFans are just as important as 'old' genes:

Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New Genes, New Brain - October 2011 Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,) http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/

And as Dr. Nelson pointed out in the ontological depth video I referenced, finding essential ORFans so early in development is severely problematic for atheists. I would also like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found, thus far, deeply imbedded within the organization of the approx. 20,000 genes of the human genome:

Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."

i.e. Not a good day to be a neo-Darwinist! ,,, as if there was ever a good day! :) bornagain77

CharlieD you dogmatically claim:

Chimp and human DNA is still over 95% identical when looking at SNPs.

The figure you arrive at depends heavily on what starting assumptions you make.

Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html

But alas for you and your preferred atheistic worldview, even the extreme bias of neo-Darwinists could not withstand the onslaught of evidence that has been uncovered:

Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012 Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,, http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf Dawkins Self proclaimed Best Evidence for Darwinian Evolution (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/

And yet the Y chromosome is shown to not be evolving:

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists

moreover if one looks for differences, instead of just similarities as Darwinists do, differences you will find:,,

Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

Moreover ORFans are just as important as 'old' genes:

Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New Genes, New Brain - October 2011 Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,) http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/

And as Dr. Nelson pointed out in the ontological depth video I referenced, finding essential ORFans so early in development is severely problematic for atheists. I would also like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found, thus far, deeply imbedded within the organization of the approx. 20,000 genes of the human genome:

Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

i.e. Not a good day to be a neo-Darwinist! ,,, as if there was ever a good day! :) bornagain77

"Wow we can’t explain something therefore it must have been designed by a higher power…now that’s the kind of thinking that got us religion in the first place."

Wow, since we only allow one particular category of causal phenomena to inform our understanding of reality, we must insist that anything and everything is the result this same category of causes, regardless of the status of the evidence. There are no logical problems with that point of view! :P Chance Ratcliff

Wow we can't explain something therefore it must have been designed by a higher power...now that's the kind of thinking that got us religion in the first place. Chimp and human DNA is still over 95% identical when looking at SNPs. Keep making your over-generalizations of biology that you know little about, you'll win their hearts and minds eventually...or not. Just make sure you remember to look both ways next time you cross the street, god isn't going to stop a dump truck from flattening you no matter how hard you bang out your refutations of evolution. Take care CharlieD

"The RNA world is proposed as a mechanism to get from A to B. B is not equal to A."

Exactly. And not only does RNA world need to explain the form of the apparatus of self-replicating organisms (DNA->RNA->proteins and requisite metabolism required for information transfer), it needs to be able to explain the information content in DNA as well. A self replicator needs not just the hardware, but also the specification present in the software -- the sequence of coded information which specifies both proteins and regulatory products. It's quite precious watching the hand actually wave when one tries to make the theoretical leap from a ribozyme reaction to the DNA, RNA, and protein complexes required for the simplest extant life. Chance Ratcliff

UB: you must accept that at some point the RNA would have to produce something other than itself Charlie: Why, must I accept this? Why does RNA have to produce something other than itself?

The RNA world is proposed as a mechanism to get from A to B. B is not equal to A. Was this intended to be a serious question? Upright BiPed

CharlieD you also state:

mutation can alter things such as expression and phenotype.

Slight problem for you here CharlieD:

Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

Moreover, the alternative splicing code is found to be very different between even chimps and humans,,

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F

Yet changes in any regulatory code, such as the alternative splicing code or the genetic code, is known to be instantly catastrophic:

Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011 Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal: "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10) OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code). Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html

i.e. Trying to change a code from the 'bottom up' in a piecemeal fashion is impossible. A code must be implemented 'top down' all at the same time. It's a take it of leave it deal. As well it is good to remember how hard the alternative splicing code was to break:

Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed - May 2010 Excerpt: 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,,, http://crev.info/content/breakthrough_second_genetic_code_revealed

Moreover, the genetic similarity for chimps and humans is found, now that more data is coming in, to be nowhere near the 99% mark that Darwinists had originally misled people to believe:

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome

Yet though the differences to be explained are far greater than the 99% genetic similarity figure neo-Darwinists originally misled people to believe, it is now known that the variation neo-Darwinian processes can account for a far more constrained than what neo-Darwinists would prefer people to believe:

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/

Verse and Music:

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Remind Me Who I Am Share - Jason Gray http://myktis.com/songs/remind-me-who-i-am/

bornagain77

CharlieD,,

"You Can't Handle the Truth" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM

you proclaim:

Nope, youre putting words in my mouth again. I did not claim that sexual reproduction creates new genes,,,

That's the whole problem, nobody knows where these ORFan genes, found in every new species sequenced, are coming from:

Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008 Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered. http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zJaetK9gvCo#t=760s The essential genome of a bacterium - 2011 Figure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202797/pdf/msb201158.pdf Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf

bornagain77

Nope, youre putting words in my mouth again. I did not claim that sexual reproduction creates new genes, I stated that sexual reproduction creates new combinations of genes. Crossing over in meiosis mixes parental alleles into different combinations and mutation can alter things such as expression and phenotype. Do have any thoughts of your own on the topic or are you going to continue to copy and paste? CharlieD

CharlieD you proclaim:

What one scientist argues is the primary function of sex is, is irrelevant. The fact is that sexual reproduction provides another mechanism of variation. End of story.

Now Now CharlieD my little wannabe monkey from Cell block C,,

George Michael - Monkey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHb2XYeXcJI

,,,Let's not close the book on this epic story until we dot all our i's and cross all our t's. For instance, exactly what type of variations are being provided? You claim new genes arise by sexual recombination, I certainly know of no studies supporting your claim,,,

Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

,,but I do know this type of variation arises in humans,,,

“Our Missing Genes” - The Scientist - February 18, 2012 Excerpt: On average, a person will have about 20 genes that are completely “lost”—meaning that both alleles have inactivating mutations. https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/at-least-1-percent-of-human-genes-can-be-shut-down-without-causing-serious-disease/ Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/ Human Mutation Clock Half Off - October 20, 2012 Excerpt: New studies have shown about 36 mutations between generations in Icelandic families. The rates seem to be converging on “1.2 × 10?8 mutations per generation at any given nucleotide site,” or “1 in 2.4 billion mutations per site per year,” which is less than half the previous estimate. http://crev.info/2012/10/human-mutation-clock-half-off/ the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.hgmd.org/ Of note: the word celebrating has now been removed from the preceding site, and the detrimental mutation count is up over 125,000

Now CharlieD my little wannabe monkey from cell block C, do you see the problem here? If not perhaps Dr. John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' can help you see that the type of variation we got is not the type of variation we need for Darwinism to be true!

Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk

bornagain77

"you must accept that at some point the RNA would have to produce something other than itself" Why, must I accept this? Why does RNA have to produce something other than itself? CharlieD

Hi Charlie,

this was the point of the argument: that RNA can function as both the medium of info storage and also the cause of the biological effect, no translation needed.

Yes, and I responded. If you propose that biological organization originated with an unknown RNA script that reproduced itself, and you also understand the material conditions by which biological organization is produced today, then you must accept that at some point the RNA would have to produce something other than itself via the constraints of physical law. And to accomplish this task, it will simultaneously require a medium to contain form, as well as a translation apparatus to establish what that form will be (which is not reducible to physical law). Again, pushing the issue into the darkness of an unknown RNA does not alter the reality of the system to be explained. Upright BiPed

What one scientist argues is the primary function of sex is, is irrelevant. The fact is that sexual reproduction provides another mechanism of variation. End of story. CharlieD

as to: 'Either way, sexual reproduction adds another layer of variation by allowing different combinations of genes to be present in offspring.' "Now youre just making things up." ",,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,," bornagain77

"you object to the fact that bacteria are very uncooperative to your preferred atheistic/materialistic worldview" Now youre just making things up. I said bacteria undergo evolution by different mechanisms, I did not say that bacteria do not follow the ideas of evolution. Either way, sexual reproduction adds another layer of variation by allowing different combinations of genes to be present in offspring. CharlieD

CharlieD you object to the fact that bacteria are very uncooperative to your preferred atheistic/materialistic worldview by stating:

Bacteria reproduce (asexually) and therefore undergo evolution by very different mechanisms in comparison to humans.

And right you are my wannabe monkey CharlieD. But alas, the problem becomes worse with sexual reproduction:

Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm Ian Juby's sex video - (Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve?) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM

bornagain77

"Evolution, by very definition of the Darwinian and modern theory, is unguided." No, mutation is unguided, selection of mutation and gene flow is carried out by the environment the population lives in, both abiotic and biotic. These factors account for the "interaction and purposeful direction" you speak of. Please do not twist the definitions of words to your liking, although it may not be obvious to the scientifically illiterate that you cater to on here, it most certainly is obvious to those with some background in biology. CharlieD

50,000 generations in bacteria, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution? This comparison is outright ridiculous. Bacteria reproduce and therefore undergo evolution by very different mechanisms in comparison to humans. Also, I saw something about plants that reminded me of an instance of macroevolution being observed in plants. "because the medium cannot produce the effect without the translation apparatus, and the translation apparatus cannot specify the effect without the input of form." And this was the point of the argument: that RNA can function as both the medium of info storage and also the cause of the biological effect, no translation needed. CharlieD

Im not talking about “unguided” evolution. Evolution is guided by what is beneficial to the organism under specific circumstances, whether that is at the molecular level or at the species morphology level.

CharlieD, it is good to see your clarification. However, it is not helpful to use terminology in a way that is opposite to what virtually everyone else in the debate on both sides uses. Evolution, by very definition of the Darwinian and modern theory, is unguided. Guidance implies some kind of intelligent forethought, interaction, purposeful direction. Materialistic evolution is most definitely unguided. That is the whole point of the "designer substitute" theory -- no intelligent input, forethought, planning, guidance is necessary. Eric Anderson

Hello CharlieD, It appears that you asked three questions with the first addressed to me.

I saw that Mr. Biped, and I also noticed that your argument was based on the idea that “Without one arrangement the other is useless.” How on earth can you be so sure of that? Who’s to say there are not simpler molecules of tRna synthases or simpler systems than what we have supposedly evolved to have.

Just as before, when the question arose about this being an issue of RNA vs protein, this is not an issue about complex molecules versus simple molecules. This is about the necessary structure of a system that uses recorded information to produce a functional effect. You ask how I can be sure that a medium without a translation apparatus is useless, and vice versa. I can be sure because the medium cannot produce the effect without the translation apparatus, and the translation apparatus cannot specify the effect without the input of form. Specifically, DNA cannot produce polypeptides, and the ribosome cannot provide the ordering of amino acids. You ask: who is to say that there weren’t simpler systems? No one can say that, but this is not strictly about the simplicity of the system. It’s about what must be accomplished by the system. Every instance of information transfer found in nature has the twin roles of a) the input of form, and b) the production of an effect. What connects those two roles is the local establishment of a systematic rule, which is not reducible to inexorable physical law or the medium driving the effect. Or, to put it into different vernacular, the observed proximate cause of the functional effect is the input of form, not the constraints of physical law alone. And if the effect cannot be derived from physical law, then the system must have a capacity (independent of the strict constraints of physical law) to facilitate the input of form and bring that effect into being. Somewhere on the Savannah right now there is a large herbivore who carelessly misplaces a hoof on top of an ant mound. This is a temporal event within a stochastic environment, and it forces the ant to have a capacity to respond to it. But the inexorable laws of gravity, magnetism, and thermodynamics do not dictate a point in time that an ant should go on the attack. That event is the product of information instead (i.e. it is context specific). And the organism that responds to it must have the capacity to introduce information into a system that operates under physical law. That is why there are two roles. The twin roles are necessary in order to facilitate the input of form into a physical system, where it can constrain the output of that system in a way which is subject to physical law, but not determined by it. On that note, you will notice that the code within genetic translation is established in physical (temporal and spatial) isolation from both the medium and its product. The structure of the system allows the local input of form into the production of an effect which is not determined by physical law, but is determined by the context of the system producing it - just as it is in any other form of recorded information transfer, and just as logical analysis would predict it to be. Upright BiPed

As well CharlieD you may be interested in these findings which come from empirical research: Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/ Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. bornagain77

CharlieD you gripe: "so it is no surprise their data contradicts what actually happens in biology." Well CharlieD let's take us a gander at 'what actually happens in biology': i.e. Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance? List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp That doesn't seem to be helping! How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can catch almighty evolution in action??? Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010 Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html Shoot that doesn't seem to be helping either! Perhaps we just got to give the almighty power of neo-Darwinism ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ to the almighty power of Darwinian Evolution and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution??? Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html Now that just can’t be right!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!! Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7 Now something is going terribly wrong here!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!!! A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html Now, there is something terribly wrong here! After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!! bornagain77

Ah yes, "However the general patterns which Mendel reveals are surprisingly consistent—as long as the input data which is used is even remotely realistic biologically." The article then proceeds to say that in their study they increased the frequency of beneficial mutations 10,000-fold and made all mutations co-dominant. These are huge deviations from what actually occurs biologically, so it is no surprise their data contradicts what actually happens in biology. I also found it interesting that the values used for many of the inputs are not given, only the results are given, making reproduction of the study impossible. Why am I not surprised this was funded by ICR and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (a worthless group of child molesters) CharlieD

CharlieD as to "This is a simple idea of population genetics and inheritance" Funny, it's the 'simple ideas' from population genetics that also falsify neo-Darwinism:

Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

Supplemental notes:

How the Junk DNA prediction of neo-Darwinists was born out of the mathematics of population genetics http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011 Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/

bornagain77

In this example, the simpler system is less efficient at performing its function, therefore if it had come from a population of organisms all still exhibiting the superior system, the organism would have been out-competed and driven to extinction. This is a simple idea of population genetics and inheritance. That is my understanding at least. CharlieD

CharlieD you state: "Also, slightly simpler systems do exist still today" So, since Darwinian processes have an overwhelming tendency to degrade things,,

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

,, then why not assume that the simpler system came from the more complex system instead of insisting, against what we consistently observe in our evidence, that it was the other way around???

Presenting the Positive Case for Design - Casey Luskin - February 14, 2012 Excerpt: If you think of the flagellum like an outboard motor, and the T3SS like a squirt gun, the parts they share are the ones that allow them to be mounted on the bracket of a boat. But the parts that give them their distinct functions -- propulsion or injection -- are not shared. I said that thinking you can explain the flagellum simply by referring me to the T3SS is like saying if you can account for the origin of the mounting-bracket on the back of you boat, then you've explained the origin of the motor too -- which obviously makes no sense. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/at_north_dakota056351.html "One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. ‘The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later," Howard Ochman - Biochemist - New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008) The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems - September 2012 - Institut Pasteur, Paris, France http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002983

Supplemental note:

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

bornagain77

Also, slightly simpler systems do exist still today, such as bacteria that do not have specific tRNA synthases for some amino acids. They rely on other mechanisms to supply amino acids. CharlieD

Im not talking about "unguided" evolution. Evolution is guided by what is beneficial to the organism under specific circumstances, whether that is at the molecular level or at the species morphology level. CharlieD

Mr CharlieD:

Mr. Joe, continuing with Upright’s conversation, a testable hypothesis would be that since tRNA synthases are so important to complex life, that they must have supposedly evolved early in the course of life’s history and be conserved in different forms of life. This is testable by looking at the amino acid sequence of Upright’s aars, and it turns out that the human form shares 41% of its sequence with the ecoli protein.

Interesting, however that doesn't have anything to do with unguided evolution. As for your response to Upright Biped, well it would be up to someone to demonstrate a simpler system can exist. Joe

I saw that Mr. Biped, and I also noticed that your argument was based on the idea that "Without one arrangement the other is useless." How on earth can you be so sure of that? Who's to say there are not simpler molecules of tRna synthases or simpler systems than what we have supposedly evolved to have. Also, Mr. Eric I have read that basic proteins can form on their own, with simple catalytic sites. Are you aware of the catalyst zeolite? This porous mineral is used as a catalyst of chemical reaction in the petrochemical industry, and it functions simply because it has small spaces between its pores. Catalysts, whether protein or not can be of very simple structure. Mr. Joe, continuing with Upright's conversation, a testable hypothesis would be that since tRNA synthases are so important to complex life, that they must have supposedly evolved early in the course of life's history and be conserved in different forms of life. This is testable by looking at the amino acid sequence of Upright's aars, and it turns out that the human form shares 41% of its sequence with the ecoli protein. CharlieD

CharlieD- Our argument against evolutionism/ unguided evolution, is that it cannot be tested. It doesn't produce any predictions nor a testable hypothesis. So if Joeatle actually produced a testable hypothesis or predictions borne from unguided evolution, we may have listed to him. Joe

CharlieD:

The word [information] has numerous variations of definitions.

And what are those various definitions that you have in mind? ----- joealtle:

. . . basic proteins can form on their own.

LOL! The gift that keeps on giving. :)

From this point it only requires different variations of protein/RNA to increase the diversity of functions in both information storage/inheritance and metabolism.

Gee, see how easy it all is!? We just need some variations and, presto, we get function, information storage, metabolism. Eric Anderson

I assure you that I did.

UB: To continue with your example, when the mRNA is delivered to the ribosome for translation it comes into proximity to tRNA molecules which have been previously charged (by the aaRS) with the correct amino acids (following the genetic code) and the forces of pair bonding between codon and anti-codon will physically order the tRNA to reflect the sequence that was present in the original DNA. As a matter of direct observation, the DNA provides information (i.e. the form of the resulting protein) to a system which is physically capable of producing that physical effect. Do you agree with all that? joeeltle: Sure

As I previously said, the material evidence hardly ever comes into question, given that it is based on the foundational research in the domain. Do you have some misgivings about the material evidence you'd like to share? Upright BiPed

You should have used your supposed scientific evidence from all those scientists when conversing with Mr. Atle. Im not sure why that thought never crossed your mind. CharlieD

Hi CharlieD, Thanks for the comment. I wasn't making an argument against the evolution of a biological system. My argument assumes evolution instead. It also assumes that the basis of heredity (i.e. information) is a thing that any definiton of the word "information" would describe as a real thing, and therefore it must have material consequences and be identifiable. Knowing what is physically required to transfer form through a material medium is a reasonable goal in trying to understand it. If it turns out that some observers may have to adjust their thoughts to accomodate verifiable results, then it is to be expected that they do so. As far as basing my argument on science, my arguement is generally based on the science of Francis Crick and James Watson, plus the May 1961 results from Marshal Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei, as well as research by Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik on tRNA, plus the keen observations of a number of others (Polanyi, Pattee, von Neumann, Barbieri, Denton, Abel, Behe, etc) that I've had the good fortune to read. You might also like to know that the material facts are hardly ever even brought up in relation to my argument. That should indicate the gist of the debate, and the level to which the material facts are in dispute. What should be expected from opponents who cannot dispute the observations of material evidence? You are however quite right about the importance of definitons though. I do not believe I am required to use my opponents definitons (after all they may be incomplete or equivocating, which would retard progress), only that I am prepared to coherently give mine, and be consistent in my usage. I am just a layman commentor here, and I am prepared to adjust my language if shown that it is factually incorrect. I have certainly done so before. It goes with the territory. :) Upright BiPed

It’s interesting that you base your argument against the evolution of a biological system on your own definition of the word “information.” The word has numerous variations of definitions. Don’t you think it would be a better idea to base your argument against the evolution of a biological system on evidence from scientific research anyways? CharlieD

Genotype vs phenotype is nucleotide vs protein issue.

The genotype is the information and the phenotype is the end product of that information. When you put forward the RNA World hypothesis, you are claiming that RNA is both the information and the product of that information. The genotype-phenmotype distinction only becomes an issue in real world chemistry. As I said earlier, pushing the issue into the darkness of the RNA World does nothing to alter reality. And you are taking for granted the very thing that must be explained. At some point the RNA must build something other than itself. To do that will require recorded information using a code; after all, proteins aren’t made of nucleotides. You’ll need a mechanism to establish that code, and you’ll need it prior to the onset of information-based organization. And since that system contains an irreducibly complex core, you’ll need that mechanism to simulaneously establish a physicochemically-arbitrary relationship between two discrete material objects. The system won’t function without it. Its a physical fact.

RNA can both contain info and catalyze reactions and basic proteins can form on their own.

The code you need isn’t established by RNA, it’s established by protein. So prior to the onset of ‘organization based on recorded information’, you’ll need protein to establish the code. If you have even a single scrap of empirical evidence of an RNA establishing a code, then I’d be more than happy to review it. (btw, it’s not there, I’ve looked)

From this point it only requires different variations of protein/RNA to increase the diversity of functions in both information storage/inheritance and metabolism.

This is a completely and utterly false statement. Firstly, you must establish a code if nucleotides are to instruct the production of proteins, and secondly you must have an energy-independent coding structure unless you don’t expect to contain anything but the most trivial amounts of information, and thirdly, you have to have a translation apparatus that can produce effects based on the code found in the medium. In other words Joealtle, you haven’t even begun to begin, and quite frankly I don’t think you have even the slightest understanding of this. You have a wholly underdeveloped understanding of what information is, and what it does, and how it does what it does, and why it does it that way. As I said at the top, you need to get an education on these issues if you want to have any hope of debating in earnest. cheers… Upright BiPed

Genotype vs phenotype is nucleotide vs protein issue. Self-replication can be achieved without any heritable information actually. RNA can both contain info and catalyze reactions and basic proteins can form on their own. From this point it only requires different variations of protein/RNA to increase the diversity of functions in both information storage/inheritance and metabolism. Joealtle

RNA strands alone can serve the purpose of both information storage and function of that information

This is not an RNA vs protein issue. And pushing the material requirements back into an unknown/untested "RNA world" does nothing whatsoever to change the requirements of the system. In order to achieve self-replicating biological organization, i.e. heritible recorded information operating in a system capable of producing a physical effect, including the necessary production and distribution of usable energy, respiration of waste, cross contamination control, etc etc etc - you still need still need an arrangement of matter serving as a medium to contain recorded information, as well as a second arrangement of matter to establish what the effect of that information will be. To say otherwise is to say that a single RNA script can not only contain the information required to replicate itself, but surprisingly also contains the information required for a system of recorded heritable information processing (using a semiotic code) within a homeostatic metabolizing entity prior to any "genotype-phenotype" (information --> effect). This is not a theory on the cusp of confirmation by evidence, despite what you wish to believe. Pushing the genotype-phenotype distinction into an RNA world doesn't alter reality; at some point the RNA has to build something besides itself. This is the materialist theory of poof. So now when you come here to do your culture warring in the name of empiricism and material evidence, you know which material facts to ignore. An irreducibly complex system is required prior to onset organization based on recorded information. Upright BiPed

And as I already said, RNA strands alone can serve the purpose of both information storage and function of that information. That is a part of abiogenesis, RNA can serve the purpose of both the phenotype and genotype in early cells. Eventually proteins took over and this can be observed in the structure and function of the ribosome, it has both protein parts and also RNA parts that carry out steps in information transfer, and as we know, RNA is a form of information storage. Joealtle

try making your point soon

Sure. My point is that you just agreed to the material conditions that are required to transfer any instance of recorded information into a physical effect - without exception. And those material conditions include an arrangment of matter to evoke an effect within a system, and an arrangement of matter to physically establish what that effect will be. Without one arrangment the other is useless. Without both, there cannot be a tranfer of information into a physical effect. In other words, there is no genotype and phenotype distinction (which btw, the process of Darwinian evolution requires in order to exist). You've agreed to the irreducibly complex system underlying biological organization, whose existence is not only a universal observation, but also a logical necessity. I'll offer you the argument in a single paragraph, then you can go back to assuming your conclusions.

In a material universe, it is not possible to transfer any form of recorded information into a material effect without using an arrangement of matter (or energy) as an information-bearing medium. If that is true, then other material necessities must logically follow. Firstly, such a medium must operate to evoke a material effect within a system capable of producing that effect. Universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. Secondly, if a medium contains information as a consequence of its arrangement, then that arrangement must be materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. And thirdly, if an arrangement of matter requires a system to produce an effect that it is materially arbitrary to, then that system must contain a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the medium and its effect. Once again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. If each of these things are true, then in order to transfer any form of recorded information, the process fundamentally requires two arrangements of matter, each with a materially arbitrary quality, operating as an irreducible core within a system. And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of the system. Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of information-based organization, as well as Darwinian evolution.

Upright BiPed

Sure, try making your point soon because I wont be on here much longer, this was only a weekend thing. Joealtle

to pass information, you need an actual physical thing in which the information is described

Agreed. And like any other form of information when that genetic information is passed it must be translated in order to produce a physical effect from it. To continue with your example, when the mRNA is delivered to the ribosome for translation it comes into proximity to tRNA molecules which have been previously charged (by the aaRS) with the correct amino acids (following the genetic code) and the forces of pair bonding between codon and anti-codon will physically order the tRNA to reflect the sequence that was present in the original DNA. As a matter of direct observation, the DNA provides information (i.e. the form of the resulting protein) to a system which is physically capable of producing that physical effect. Do you agree with all that? Upright BiPed

I see, well I was referring to DNA/RNA/protein with DNA as the recorded info, RNA as the transfer medium, and protein as the translated info. And my example of when info storage and transfer medium are one in the same is when RNA is used as info storage and translated directly into protein. But I see what you are saying; that to pass information, you need an actual physical thing in which the information is described. And I agree with that. Im not sure what your point is though. Joealtle

if the recorded information also serves as the transfer medium

Then we have misunderstood each other. My position is that recorded information must be recorded in the arrangement of a material medium. I am capable of presenting a great deal of evidence from nature which demonstrates this to be true - information must be recorded in the arrangement of a material medium in order to be transferred into a physical effect. Not only is this a universal observation in nature, but it is also a logical necessity (after all, what else would it be recorded in). Perhaps you agree with me on this, and we have simply been talking past each other. If I am not correct on that, then in order for me to understand your position, can you please give me an example of recorded information that does not serve as the medium its transferred in? I am interested to know how it was recorded, if not in a medium. Upright BiPed

No, sorry, Im saying that if the recorded information also serves as the transfer medium, then yes its possible to not need a separate transfer medium. Joealtle

do you think it is possible to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using an arrangement of matter/energy as a medium?

Hmm, well if the recorded information is the medium that transfers the info then yes.

Your answer is a little unclear, it seems you first agree with the statement, but then contradict it when you say "yes". I'm sure that's just a simple mistake, so I am assuming you agree that the transfer of recorded information requires an arrangement of matter or energy as a medium. Is that correct? Upright BiPed

Hmm, well if the recorded information is the medium that transfers the info then yes. Joealtle

Sure.

So I can also assume that you understand that Darwinian evolution operates by (and is dependent upon) that genotype-phenotype distinction - that it is, in fact, the information recorded in the nucleic medium (the gene in the genotype) that evolves over time. Allow me to ask a question, do you think it is possible to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using an arrangement of matter/energy as a medium? Upright BiPed

Sure. Joealtle

Joealte,

Id is based on an absence of facts, “science doesnt know how it came about, therefore it must have been designed,” is an argument from ignorance.

Again, you assume your conclusion, but we can set that aside for now. You are familiar with the reigning biological concept - that of the genotype and the phenotype - with the genotype being information recorded in nucleic sequences to be translated into a physical effect, and the phenotype being the resulting product of that information after being translated, yes? Upright BiPed

Why is it not in the ballpark of reason? Because I dont have on hand the death toll caused by religion? The fact is that religion has an extremely bloody history, theres no getting around that. Im not atheist, by the way. Religion and atheism can be equally harmful, the only thing that combats both is reason. Joealtle

Joealtle comparing the unmittigated horror done in the name of Atheism to the atrocities done in the name of Christianity is not even in the ballpark of reason. You have just revealed yourself as a atheistic dogmatist who could care less what the evidence actually says and is determined to believe a lie not matter what you have to say. Good day sir, I'm done!. bornagain77

Religion has a pretty bloody history too, bud. Joealtle

Vestigial organs are not necessarily a completely useless organ, but an organ that has lost its major function and now only performs a minor function. Blind mole rat has eyes that are covered by a flap of skin Emu and ostrich (flightless birds) have wings Blind fish still have eyes Joealtle

The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government: “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ footnote: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (legislation by liberal justices from the bench!): Abortion Statistics http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/18/abortion-statistics/ Charles Darwin stated this... ‘At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" And Darwinism, despite denial from atheists, has in fact had horrendous consequences on society; Documentary Ties Darwin to Disastrous Social Consequences - What Hath Darwin Wrought? - Sept. 2010 http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100926a If Darwinists want to insist that all these murderous consequences, and ethical implications, of Darwinism are just a mistake of the past will someone please inform Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, of that development: Australia Awards Infanticide Backer Peter Singer Its Highest Honor – 2012 Excerpt: Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots: - Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.” - Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two.Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.” - Singer has defended bestiality. - Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. - Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.” – Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering. – Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/12/australia-awards-infanticide-backer-peter-singer-its-highest-honor/ The Population Control Holocaust - 2012 Excerpt:,,, the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland. While Malthus’s argument that human population growth invariably leads to famine and poverty is plainly at odds with the historical evidence, which shows global living standards rising with population growth, it nonetheless persisted and even gained strength among intellectuals and political leaders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its most pernicious manifestation in recent decades has been the doctrine of population control, famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich, whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract The Population Bomb has served as the bible of neo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlich warned of overpopulation and advocated that the American government adopt stringent population control measures, both domestically and for the Third World countries that received American foreign aid. (Ehrlich, it should be noted, is the mentor of and frequent collaborator with John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.),,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust Further notes: The following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped - David Barton - The Consequences Of The Removal Of Prayer From Public School - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 To Pray or Not To Pray - David Barton - Graphs http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time bornagain77

Moreover the supposed Junk regions, once they were looked at more closely, were, amazingly, found to be 'more functional' than the protein coding regions: Astonishing DNA complexity update Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."" We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html Incredibly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) before the ENCODE findings of 2012, insisted that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, was useless 'Junk DNA'. Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm Here is quote that clearly denotes the anti-scientific stance of neo-Darwinism; '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, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), P.No.168-69. - Received The Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 And let's not forget the horror of the holocaust which, though Darwinists are in complete denial of this fact of history, Richard Weikart has done a excellent job in tying evolutionary reasoning directly to the 'scientific justification' behind the holocaust: From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html How Evolutionary Ethics Influenced Hitler and Why It Matters - Richard Weikart: - January 2012 http://www.credomag.com/2012/01/05/how-evolutionary-ethics-influenced-hitler-and-why-it-matters/ How Darwin's Theory Changed the World - Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm "Christian" Atrocities compared to Atheists Atrocities - Dinesh D'Souza - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk bornagain77

Well Joealtle, I certainly do not condone many of the abuses conducted under the name of Christianity by those in power, but let's be fair here if we are going to start selectively nitpicking, Atheists by far have had, by far, the most stifling effect on science and culture: Neo-Darwinism’s negative effect on science and society Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ. "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. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 '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.' - Francis Crick - co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 - atheist Intelligent Design and Medical Research - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7906908 Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past: Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/ Moreover, besides evolutionary reasoning NOT 'producing new discoveries and increasing understanding', and besides the medical malpractice that evolutionary reasoning led to, is the fact that it can be forcefully argued that evolutionary reasoning, the more dogmatically it has been clung to, has in fact inhibited 'producing new discoveries and increasing understanding'. This is clearly illustrated in the junk DNA fiasco that evolutionary reasoning has foisted off on biology. Indeed imposed on it prior to investigation for any functionality in the non-coding regions of DNA; Is Panda's Thumb Suppressing the Truth about Junk DNA? Excerpt: Dr. Pellionisz sent me an e-mail regarding his recent experiences at Panda's Thumb. Pellionisz reports that Panda's Thumb is refusing to print his stories about how he has personally witnessed how the Darwinian consensus rejected suggestions that "junk" DNA had function. Dr. Pellionisz's e-mail recounts how some rogue Darwinian biologists have believed that "junk" DNA had function, but it also provides historical proof that this went against the prevailing consensus, and thus such suggestions that "junk"-DNA had function were ignored or rejected by most Darwinian scientists. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/is_pandas_thumb_supressing_the003947.html International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases" Excerpt: uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177 bornagain77

Either way the church put a man on house arrest becuase he went against its beliefs. You can try to spin it however you want, but thats what happened. Joealtle

Joealtle, you REALLY need to read up on stuff before you go off like a little materialistic robot repeating falsehoods you have been taught: Contest Winner! - Barry Arrington - July 27, 2011 Please read the section titled 'Primer on the Galileo Affair' to see how far the popular myth of 'science vs. religion' is from the actual reality of the entire Galileo affair: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/contest-winner/ Why Galileo was Wrong, Even Though He was Right - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: The Galileo Affair is far more complex than the simple-minded warfare thesis supposes. Yes Pope John Paul II issued a declaration in 1992 acknowledging the church's errors. And the church was no doubt mistaken. But the church's action in the Galileo Affair was far more complex than simply opposing a scientific finding out of religious conviction,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-galileo-was-wrong-even-though-he.html 4a. New studies on Galileo are coming out, based on new research in the archives of the Roman Inquisition--and they support my interpretation in Saving Leonardo. "The newer view is that Galileo made needless trouble for himself by being impolitic...The Church wanted, as today’s intelligent designers now say, to be allowed to 'teach the controversy'—to teach the Copernican and Aristotelian views as rival hypotheses, both plausible, both unproved. All Galileo had to do was give the Church a break and say that you could see it that way if you wanted to. He wouldn’t give it a break." Right! As I (Nancy Pearcey) wrote in Saving Leonardo: "The typical story is that Galileo was persecuted because he championed the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. But the truth is that no one at the time objected to Copernicanism—as long as it was used merely as a calculating device. There was not enough empirical data yet to decide between an earth-centered and a sun-centered system. Both systems worked equally well for navigation, which was the main practical use of astronomy at the time. Most people were willing to use whichever astronomical theory worked best, without worrying about whether it was physically true. Galileo attracted controversy because he insisted that the Copernican system was not just a useful calculating tool but physically true. The central question at stake was thus the status of mathematical truth: Does mathematics tell us what is true in the physical world? This was a philosophical question, not a theological one. And Galileo’s main opponents were not churchmen but the Aristotelian philosophers in the universities. For them, mathematics was not high on the list of what makes the world what it is. The essential feature of Aristotle’s universe was not quantity but quality—hot and cold, wet and dry, soft and hard. In the universities, mathematics ranked much lower than physics. A mere mathematician was not supposed to dictate to the physicists what theory they could hold.... The Galileo saga is typically told as a conflict between science and religion. But in reality it was a conflict among Christians over the correct philosophy of nature. Was it Aristotle’s quality or Galileo’s quantity? Galileo’s victory was the triumph of the idea that the nature is constructed on a mathematical blueprint." - Nancy Pearcey - March, 2013 bornagain77

Look, try to keep your posts down in size, I mean cmon. Make your point and be done with it. I know you guys like to copy and paste huge amounts of irrelevant information to overwhelm your opponents but could you please keep it to under a PhD thesis? Anyways, whats your point? The church silenced galileo for his ideas that contradicted the church's beliefs. Theres no way around it. Religion all too often limits the progress of society. Joealtle

Well funny that it took the purging of pagan Greek influences before modern science took firm root, but as to Galileo,, The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe” The Galileo affair has certainly turned out to be far different, and far more nuanced, than the simplistic 'science vs. religion' narrative that is told in popular culture today. Often times an atheist will try to deride a person's Christian belief by saying something along the lines of, 'Well, we also don't believe that the sun orbits the earth any longer do we?', trying to mock the person's Christian belief as some type of superstitious belief that is left over from the Dark Ages that had blocked the progress of science. Yet, those atheists who say such things fail to realize that the geocentric (Earth centered) model of the solar system was overturned by three devout Christians, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, the three primary scientists involved in overturning the geocentric model, were all devout Christians and it certainly was not an atheist, nor some group of atheists, nor some other religion, involved in overturning the geocentric model. Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a devout Lutheran, was the mathematician who mathematically verified Copernicus's, a loyal Catholic, heliocentric model for the solar system. Diana Severance (PhD, Rice University), a historian with broad experience teaching in universities and seminaries, stated this about Kepler "About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit."[1] In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared this very 'unscientific' thought: ‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ [2] In 1610, it was the Italian scientist Galileo Galilee (1564-1642), who was also a dedicated Christian to his dying day despite his infamous, and widely misunderstood, conflict with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church [3,4, 4a], who empirically verified the Catholic Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus's (1473-1543) heliocentric theory. Thus it is a undeniable fact of history that it was men of the Christian faith, and no other faith (especially the atheistic faith), who overturned the geocentric model. In fact, it can also be forcefully argued that modern science had its foundation laid during the protestant reformation of the 16th century, and also when the Catholic church had its own private 'mini-reformation' from pagan Greek influences over its central teachings during this era. The main point being that it can be forcefully argued that modern scientific thought itself, of a rational, approachable, intelligible, universe, a universe that could dare be comprehended by the mind of man, was brought to a sustained maturity when a more pure Christian influence was brought to maturity in the Christian church(es) of western culture and the stifling pagan influences were purged from it.[5,6,7,8,9] The heliocentric theory was hotly debated at that time, for it proposed a revolutionary idea for the 1600's stating all the planets revolved around the sun. Many people of the era had simply, and wrongly, presumed everything in the universe revolved around the earth (geocentric theory), since from their limited perspective everything did seem to be revolving around the earth. As well the geocentric model seems, at first glance, to agree with the religious sensibilities of being made in God's image, although the Bible never actually directly states the earth is the 'center of the universe'.[9a] Job 26:7 “He stretches the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing” Galileo had improved upon the recently invented telescope. With this improved telescope he observed many strange things about the solar system. This included the phases of Venus as she revolved around the sun and the fact Jupiter had her own satellites (moons) which revolved around her. Thus, Galileo wrote and spoke about what had become obvious to him; Copernicus was right, the planets do indeed revolve around the sun. It is now commonly believed that man was cast down from his special place in the grand scheme of things, for the Earth beneath his feet no longer appeared to be the 'center of the universe', and indeed the Earth is now commonly believed by many people to be reduced to nothing but an insignificant speck of dust in the vast ocean of space (mediocrity principle). Yet actually the earth became exalted in the eyes of many people of that era, with its supposed removal from the center of the universe, since centrality in the universe had a very different meaning in those days. A meaning that equated being at the center of the universe with being at the 'bottom' of the universe, or being in the 'cesspool' of the universe, as this following quote makes clear. In addition, contrary to what is commonly believed, we now know that in the eyes of its contemporaries, the Copernican Revolution glorified the Earth, making it an object worthy of study, in contrast to the preceding view, which demeaned the Earth. Ironically, the Copernican Revolution is almost invariably portrayed today as having demoted the Earth from a position at the center of the universe, the main concern of God, to being merely one of the planets. Danielson(2001) made a compelling case that this portrayal is the opposite of what really happened, i.e., that before the Copernican Revolution, Earth was seen not as being at the center, but rather at the bottom, the cesspool where all filth and corruption fell and accumulated. [10] Yet contrary to what is commonly believed by many people today of the earth being nothing but an insignificant speck of dust lost in a vast ocean of space, there is actually a strong case that can now be made for the earth being central in the universe once again. In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein's General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the 'Big Bang' and continues to 'expand equally in all places': There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. [11] Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as 'center of the universe' as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered 'center of the universe'. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live. So in a holistic sense, when taking into consideration the 'Privileged Planet principle' [12] which overturned the mediocrity principle, and which gives strong indication that the Earth is uniquely suited to host complex life in this universe, it may now be possible for the earth to be legitimately, once again, considered 'central in the universe'. This intriguing possibility, for the earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), remaining from the creation of the universe, due to the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity, forms a sphere around the earth. I find the best way to get this 'centrality of the Earth in the universe'' point across is to visualize it first hand. Thus I reference the first few minutes of this following video to clearly get this 'centrality' point across: Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879 Moreover, this 'circle' of the CMBR that is found by modern science to encompass the Earth, from the remnant of the creation event that brought the entire universe instantaneously into being, was actually predicted in the Bible centuries earlier: Proverbs 8:27 (King James Version) "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle upon the face of the depth:" Proverbs 8:27 (New International Version) "I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep," But as compelling as it is to use the privileged planet principle, in conjunction with the centrality of the Earth in the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity, to establish the centrality of the Earth in the universe, this method of establishing centrality for the earth falls short of explaining 'true centrality' in the universe and still does not fully explain exactly why the CMBR forms an ‘almost’ perfect sphere around the Earth. The primary reason for why the higher dimensional 4D space-time, governing the expansion of this 3-Dimensional universe, is insufficient to maintain 3D symmetry, all by itself, becomes clear if one tries to imagine radically different points of observation in the universe. Since the universe is shown to have only (approximately) 10^79 atoms to work with, once a person tries to imagine keeping perfect 3D symmetry, from radically different points of observation within the CMBR sphere, a person quickly finds that it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality within the CMBR sphere with finite 3D material particles to work with for radically different 3D points of 'imagined observation' in the universe. As well, fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, seems to, at least from as far as I can follow the math, mathematically prove the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from differing points of observation in the universe. [13] But if the 4D space-time of General Relativity is insufficient to explain 'true 3D centrality' in the universe, what else is since we certainly observe centrality for ourselves within the sphere of the CMBR? Quantum Mechanics gives us the reason why. 'True centrality' in the universe is achieved by 'universal quantum wave collapse of photons', to each point of 'conscious observation' in the universe, and is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain 'true 3D centrality' that we witness for ourselves within the CMBR of the universe. Moreover because of advances in Quantum Mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. [14] 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15] Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not 'central', I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition. Please reflect on this for a moment, in regards to God's 'kingdom of light', are we not to keep in mind our lives are to be centered on the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God's kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on what this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than what heaven has to offer? Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? Here is a quote from evangelist Louie Giglio which I think captures this 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio [16] Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparatively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for 'the privileged planet' principle which reflects God's craftsmanship, whereas the centrality of each individual 'conscious soul' in the universe is found to be primary,,, ,,,"Is anything worth more than your soul?" Matthew 16:26 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit bornagain77

Wow you are great at copy and pasting! But anyways, heres a real history of the scientific method: Before the mid-15th century: learning was based on a mix of beliefs from ancient Greece and the catholic church Renaissance: scholars began to break away from this thinking, using reason as the measure for all things Galileo: first great scientist of the modern era to rely on observation and experiment, he was soon to be put on papal trial in the 1630s by the church for his heliocentric ideas, he was forced to recant and put in house arrest, refresh my memory does the sun revolve around the earth or it the other way around? Hmmm Also the theory of everything has nothing to do with religion, it is a theory that seeks to unite the four fundamental forces, none of which are religious in nature last I checked at least Joealtle

Joealtle though there is much to disagree with in what you wrote, let's focus on your first statement:

First off, no need to tell me about the scientific method, I am well aware of it and how it works.

Really? can you tell me what philosophical presuppositions were necessary to make the scientific method so successful for modern science?

The Origin of Science Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. …. The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Christ and Science - Stanley L. Jaki http://www.realviewbooks.com/catalogb.html#chriscie

Moreover Joealtle, contrary to what you would prefer to believe in your atheistic/materialistic worldview, not only was a Christian perspective necessary to firmly ground modern science in the first place, but it can also be forcefully argued that a Christian perspective brings a successful closure to man's quest for a mathematical 'theory of everything':

The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

bornagain77

First off, no need to tell me about the scientific method, I am well aware of it and how it works. Second, you posted a whole bunch of ideas on quantum theory...we are talking about evolution and abiogenesis, not only that but quantum mechanics is barely even understood. I asked for scientific evidence that supports ID, you gave none, just a bunch off peoples thoughts on consciousness and what it means for science, pretty a philosophical standpoint. Also, near death experiments? Cmon man really? The only thing scientific you mentioned about that was how half the people experience seeing their body from a different perspective. Id is based on an absence of facts, "science doesnt know how it came about, therefore it must have been designed," is an argument from ignorance. Joealtle

For those who have already heard that song from Evanescence, here is another from her that I really enjoyed: Evanescence - My Heart Is Broken http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/my-heart-is-broken/USWV41100052 bornagain77

Joealtle you request:

Some articles using the scientific method to support ID would be great.

Lets look at the,,

Steps of the Scientific Method The Question Your science fair project starts with a question. This might be based on an observation you have made or a particular topic that interests you. Think what you hope to discover during your investigation, what question would you like to answer? Your question needs to be about something you can measure and will typically start with words such as what, when, where, how or why. Background Research Talk to your science teacher and use resources such as books and the Internet to perform background research on your question. Gathering information now will help prepare you for the next step in the Scientific Method. Hypothesis Using your background research and current knowledge, make an educated guess that answers your question. Your hypothesis should be a simple statement that expresses what you think will happen. Experiment Create a step by step procedure and conduct an experiment that tests your hypothesis. The experiment should be a fair test that changes only one variable at a time while keeping everything else the same. Repeat the experiment a number of times to ensure your original results weren’t an accident. Data Collect data and record the progress of your experiment. Document your results with detailed measurements, descriptions and observations in the form of notes, journal entries, photos, charts and graphs. Observations Describe the observations you made during your experiment. Include information that could have affected your results such as errors, environmental factors and unexpected surprises. Conclusions Analyze the data you collected and summarize your results in written form. Use your analysis to answer your original question, do the results of your experiment support or oppose your hypothesis? Communication Present your findings in an appropriate form, whether it’s a final report for a scientific journal, a poster for school or a display board for a science fair competition. http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/projects/thescientificmethod.html

Now Joealtle, while I have already mentioned the fact that neo-Darwinism has no observational evidence that purely material processes can produce molecular machines but intelligent design does have such evidence, (in fact every time you write a post Joealtle you supply evidence that intelligence can produce information, whereas no one has ever observed material processes doing what you can easily do!), I would like to focus on something more fundamental to the scientific method. On something that undermines the reductive materialistic foundation of neo-Darwinism every time a experiment is conducted. I would like to focus specifically on the step of 'observation' within the scientific method. When we focus on observation some very interesting things pop out. For instance, what exactly is it about 'observation' in the double slit experiment that forces the wave to collapse?

Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything really physical? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

Now much ink has been spilt over this 'anomaly' in the double slit experiment, with materialists having to retreat into the bizarre 'many worlds interpretation' of Everett, David Deutsch and others, an interpretation that winds up in epistemological failure, (i.e. imagine Mother Teresa an axe murderer in some parallel universe), but for me the defining experiment that put the nail in the coffin for such speculation from materialists, for infinite parallel universes, was Wigner's Quantum Symmetries experiment for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1963:

Eugene Wigner Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Here are a couple of comments from Eugene Wigner on the implications of this experiment:

"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961

Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics, echos Wigner's observation:

“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).

As does another luminary in Quantum Mechanics, Erwin Schroedinger

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

Many other experiments have now come along in recent years to bolster Wigner's claim that "the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality":

Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

In fact the evidence is so strong that the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

And consciousness being central means being geometrically central in the sphere of the Cosmic Background Radiation of the entire universe, not just metaphorically central:

The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true "Center of the Universe" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

Now Joealtle you may object that we have no 'observational evidence' for consciousness existing outside the confines of time and space but you would be wrong in that objection. We have a near death experience, from a Harvard neurosurgeon no less, that provides us observational evidence for consciousness outside the confines of time and space. Before you object that we cannot use Near Death Experiences as observational evidence for a position I would like to point out something to you,,,

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

To continue on, This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold.

A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.html

As well, there is a viable mechanism to explain why Dr. Alexander’s NDE was experienced as ‘non-local’ consciousness, outside the confines of space-time, matter-energy, instead of as going through a tunnel as is ‘normal’ in NDE’s. The Quantum Entanglement of consciousness in the brain is found to be rather different, more spread out, than Quantum Entanglement of the soul to the rest of the body, in DNA and proteins, is:

Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video http://vimeo.com/39982578

Verse and Music:

1 Corinthians 2:9 That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him." Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch

bornagain77

How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010 Hehehe I remember reading that when it was first posted. It's just as funny now. That magic wand image with its little stars and various titles still cracks me up. Chance Ratcliff

But Joealtle, what is interesting in all this is that even though Darwinists certainly have thousands of papers to 'literature bluff' with:,,,

"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00

The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

Besides Dover, it seems that Darwinists have a bit of a problem as to literature bluffing in general when it comes to demonstrating the origin of functional information by purely Darwinian processes:

Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information – Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Intelligent Design and the Origin of Biological Information: A Response to Dennis Venema By: Casey Luskin - October 3, 2011 http://www.discovery.org/a/17571

Yet Joealtle once you get past all the literature bluffing you find out a startling fact. In spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist

The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291

of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, we have direct evidence that intelligence can produce as such:

(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067

bornagain77

Joealtle you ask:

Can you point me to some scientific studies on ID?

Here is a article and video explaining why ID is science:

Why Intelligent Design Is Science: A Reading List - Casey Luskin - November 27, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/why_intelligent1066741.html Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video (inference to best explanation) https://vimeo.com/32148403

Here are some peer reviewed articles on ID:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) - updated regularly http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Here are a few ID sites with peer reviewed papers - (of note: most of the following papers are listed on the preceding site):

Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/ Bio-Complexity Publication Archive http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/issue/archive Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) - list of published papers http://lifeorigin.academia.edu/DrDavidLAbel/Papers

Here are two papers that are particularly interesting (at least they are interesting for me at this current time):

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ (A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012 Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search. http://powertochange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Devious-Distortions-Durston-or-Myers_.pdf

bornagain77

Joe @ 20. “Your [Genomicus’] assumptions about my education level are both based on little data and completely incorrect . . .” Yes, they were based on little data. But the data that Genomicus has all pointed to his conclusion. Your comments are indeed remarkably facile, which would lead any reasonable observer to Genomicus’ conclusion. Joe, we enjoy exchanges with our Darwinist opponents here at UD. There’s nothing like a good debate. Unfortunately, you’ve given us nothing like a good debate. Your comments amount to little more than Darwinst sloganeering. Please take Eric’s advice and go educate yourself about the matters upon which you would comment. Afterwards, by all means, come back and engage with us. Barry Arrington

I only made the complexity comment about the flagellum because I constantly hear that argument from ID's. Your assumptions about my education level are both based on little data and completely incorrect, no surprise coming from the moderator of an ID site. Can you point me to some scientific studies on ID? Some articles using the scientific method to support ID would be great. What I am doing is simply calling out your argument of irreducible complexity as ignorant. you cannot call something irreducible just because we dont know every detail of the history of all the parts to the machine. Your only so called evidence for ID is that science cant yet explain how structures arose over the course of evolution. This is not scientific at all. Joealtle

Sigh. I really messed up on the block quotes in that previous message, and I actually misspelled a word :o Genomicus

Joealtle: You didn't really address my points. No offense, but your comments (e.g., the flagellum is the most complex strucutre) suggest you don't have an education in biology beyond high school, formal or otherwise.

Interestingly, Behe’s own department at Lehigh has officially opposed some of his stances.

How is this any more interesting than the fact that the mainstream scientific community has opposed much of intelligent design? The fact that you tote the flagellum as irreducibly complex, and yet you ignore that it had millions of years to evolve. Don't use the argument from incredulity, which goes like this: system X has had millions of years to evolve, so surely it did evolve. If there is no known stepwise evolutionary pathway from pre-cursors of a molecular machine to the machine itself, it is questionable whether that machine evolved. Finally, the human mind is quite capable of imagining very creative non-teleological scenarios for the origin of any biological system, and we have to take this into account when considering the origin of a given biological system. A statement of plausibility says little about what actually happened in the history of a system, and thus independent evidence is needed to support any conclusion, be it non-teleological or teleological.

Your irreducibly complex stance is also based on ignorance, as you cannot show that evolution of a biological structure is impossible.

Uh, actually, it's not up to us to demonstrate a negative. You need to demonstrate the plausibility of the evolution of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, and we need to provide positive evidence that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed.

Genomicus

Joealte,

Im pretty sure saying something is impossible because we cant explain it yet is the epitome of ignorance.

You assume your conclusion. Your comment suggest that the reason behind claiming something impossible is because we can't explain it. This leaves out the possibility that the item in question can already be explained, and that there are things that are impossible. It is not difficult to present a biological system that is irreducibly complex, nor is it difficult to present the impossible. You should take Eric's advice and educate yourself. Upright BiPed

Feel free to correct me, but Im pretty sure saying something is impossible because we cant explain it yet is the epitome of ignorance. Joealtle

Joealtle, you are completely clueless about the design inference. Do take some time to educate yourself before posting silly comments here. Eric Anderson

Im not the one making arguments that things are impossible, am I? Joealtle

Your entire position is built on ignorance. It definitely doesn't have any supporting evidence... Joe

Hmm well Im not ignoring him like you do. Irreducible complexity is built on ignorance, "evolution isnt capable of this" is an argument based on zero facts. Joealtle

Yeah throwing father time around is scientific, NOT. Joe

Interestingly, Behe's own department at Lehigh has officially opposed some of his stances. The fact that you tote the flagellum as irreducibly complex, and yet you ignore that it had millions of years to evolve. Your irreducibly complex stance is also based on ignorance, as you cannot show that evolution of a biological structure is impossible. Why are the flagellum and spliceosome irreducibly complex? Joealtle

Well hes a pretty damn smart guy.

He's just a popularizer of mainstream science. That doesn't make him any smarter than a T. Cavalier-Smith, Carl Woese, or a Michael Behe.

I love how your main picture is of the bacterial flagellum, your supposed “irreducibly complex” structure. No surprise there that its in bacteria though as they are the oldest living things on this planet.

What does the age of bacteria have to do with this? The eukaryotic flagellum is a complex motility organelle in the Eukaryotes, which have not been around for as long as the Bacteria.

The most complex structure was intelligently designed into simple bacteria?

Wherever did you get the idea the bacterial flagellum was the most complex structure? The spliceosome is far more complex than the bacterial flagellum, and it is present in the Eukaryotes.

And us humans just get opposable thumbs...

Our cells also posses eukaryotic flagella, spliceosomes, etc.

wah wahhh.

How does this contribute to the discussion over biological origins? Genomicus

Well hes a pretty damn smart guy. I love how your main picture is of the bacterial flagellum, your supposed "irreducibly complex" structure. No surprise there that its in bacteria though as they are the oldest living things on this planet. The most complex structure was intelligently designed into simple bacteria? And us humans just get opposable thumbs, wah wahhh. Joealtle

And Hitler was Man of the Year on the cover of Newsweek, I think. And wasn't Saddam Hussein, in more recent times. It was some ogre. I expect the electors were, ironically, the cast of a reality show. Axel

The same kinda head scratching went on when Barry O. won the Nobel Peace Prize. RexTugwell

Pretty sad state of affairs if RD gets #1. Influence? Influence over who about what? What about Alvin Plantinga, who would shred Dawkins in any debate? Plantinga has had huge influence too, but I'll bet his name wasn't even on the list of 65. The "honor" is dubious at best...totally comical at worst. In short, meaningless. If a first year logic student could shred the world's #1 thinker's arguments, which any first year logic student could do, how does he merit that rank? Did this come out on April 1st? DonaldM

That's proof of cultural erosion. The article said Paul Krugman and Steven Pinker were on the list nominees(?). It's a sad day in the west. bb

Exactly what is called the world's top thinker? Consciousness and thinking are mere illusions according to - the roulating collection of particles which is called - Richard Dawkins ... Box

Always a thinker, never a do-er. If mere words, memes and thoughts were evidence, Richie D would be a top contender. And it looks like many people think that his words, memes and thoughts are evidence. Kind of sad, actually. Joe

Way to go Dickie D: Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw bornagain77