Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Behe’s rule vindicated again –paper shows adaptive evolution in the near term is maladaptive for the future

Natural Selection does not have foresight, and this lack of foresight destroys complex capabilities, it does not build them. Behe’s first rule of adaptive evolution is again vindicated. Behe’s rule states that adaptation is usually loss of function, not acquisition of function. In contrast, Darwin envisioned that ever increasing complexity would be selected by nature. That new functions would emerge to enable adaptation. Not so. Nature selects for simplicity, if not out right extinction. Behe was right, Darwin was wrong. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003972 Whole Genome, Whole Population Sequencing Reveals That Loss of Signaling Networks Is the Major Adaptive Strategy in a Constant Environment Molecular signaling networks are ubiquitous across life and likely evolved to allow organisms to sense and respond to environmental Read More ›

Poles Apart: A Challenge to Professor Moran

Professor Larry Moran is mightily offended at a recent post of mine, claiming that he supports the use of ID-compatible science textbooks in Texas classrooms. I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing that claim. But if he really wants to expose what he regards as the “IDiocy” of the Intelligent Design movement, then I have an interesting proposal for him. I’ll say more on that at the end of this post. Before I continue, I’d like to highlight a remark Professor Moran made in his latest post, in response to mine: So, why did Vincent Joseph Torley misrepresent my position? Is it because he’s too stupid to understand what I was talking about or is it because he deliberately wanted Read More ›

The paradox in calculating CSI numbers for 2000 coins

Having participated at UD for 8 years now, criticizing Darwinism and OOL over and over again for 8 years is like beating a dead horse for 8 years. We only dream up more clever and effective and creative ways to beat the dead horse of Darwinism, but it’s still beating a dead horse. It’s amazing we still have a readership that enjoys seeing the debates play out given we know which side will win the debates about Darwin… Given this fact, I’ve turned to some other questions that have been of interest to me and readers. One question that remains outstanding (and may not ever have an answer) is how much information is in an artifact. This may not be Read More ›