In my previous post I discussed a paper published in the leading journal Nature on protein evolution. In spite of the scientific evidence showing the evolution of proteins is unlikely, this paper is used as an apologetic by evolutionists for why said evolution is actually no big problem. The paper uses a somewhat circuitous method to arrive at its conclusion that protein evolution occurs early and often and that the findings are yet more “novel evidence of the common ancestry of life.” These conclusions are false and are based on a naïve and circular analysis. This is not easy to understand, however, because the analysis is circuitous. Here I will provide a simple explanation to help illustrate the fallacy.  Read Read More ›

For many of us, an important characteristic of science is self-correction. We are proud of the way new findings catalyse re-evaluation and, if corrections are needed, the development of new knowledge. If you are like this, be prepared to be shocked when you read Jonathan Wells’ latest book. The concept of Junk DNA was widely held by evolutionary biologists during the 1990s, but only a few were prepared to expose the hypothesis to tests of its validity. Yet this is when publications started to accumulate that reported functionality in genetic material widely regarded as “nonsense”. Instead of alerting popularisers of science to be cautious, these writers treated the new data as unrepresentative exceptions. They pressed on with their claim that Read More ›

Here’s a new, UK-based blog, The Darwin Deception,

Darwinism as an explanation for life is dead. The final death blow was administered by discoveries about intracellular nanomachinery, which amply satisfy Darwin’s own test of falsification. Dead, but it won’t lie down. …

Dude: Darwinism and a multitude of other dead ideas and popular delusions are crowded so thick, they can’t fall down when they die. Read More ›

Which professional communicators always suspected. The guy who worked with Nim Chimpsky, Herbert Terrace, speaks honestly* about his research here.

The language didn’t materialize. A human baby starts out mostly imitating, then begins to string words together. Nim didn’t learn. His three-sign combinations — such as ‘eat me eat’ or ‘play me Nim’ — were redundant. He imitated signs to get rewards. I published the negative results in 1979 in the journal Science, which had a chilling effect on the field. Read More ›

The Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) UK recently announced its 2011 conference on intelligent design. This may be just the right opportunity to increase your understanding of the fast moving centre-stage debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design and at the same time enjoy a fabulous conference centre, all en-suite, in the Malvern Hills, Worcestershire.

You’ll be engaging with world-class speakers for up to five sessions over the Friday evening and Saturday as they bring the scientific evidence that is making ID an unstoppable movement, world-wide.

• Dr. Geoff Barnard
• Prof. Chris Shaw
• Dr. Jay Wesley Richards

In “The origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics” (Genome Biology 2010, 11:209 ) Eugene V Koonin argues for endosymbiosis (organisms ingest other organisms, but the latter remain alive and provide a new function for the whole) to explain eukaryotes (complex cells, not bacteria):

Phylogenomics of eukaryote supergroups suggest a highly complex last common ancestor of eukaryotes and a key role of mitochondrial endosymbiosis in the origin of eukaryotes.

Sure but he’s also argued for the multiverse to explain that too. Read More ›

If you have been following UD over the past few days you will know Dr Nick Matzke, formerly Public Information Project Director of the US NCSE,  has intervened in Dr Cudworth’s thread on the question of evolutionary biology qualifications of leading objectors to design theory.

As a result of this, in the end, even Dr Cudworth has commented on the tangential issue — evolution (especially claimed universal common descent)  vs creationism and design theory with the Of Pandas and People book that featured in the Dover Trial as a significant point of contention , most recently here in response to Dr Matzke here.

I think the whole issue is a polarising, distractive side-track.

Why is that? Read More ›

In “Bacteria Flash Like Christmas Lights,” Sara Reardon (Science NOW, 14 July 2011) tells us:

Like little batteries, bacteria have two charges: positive on the outside of their cell membranes, negative on the inside. And as with batteries, this division of charge is their power source. By pumping protons across their membrane, bacteria can make energy, spin their flagella so they can swim, and drive the pumps that bring in food. Researchers have now found that Escherichia coli drop this voltage difference for a brief moment and depolarize, much as neurons do when they fire. The phenomenon could help explain how some bacteria resist antibiotics. Read More ›

Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller thinks his book will be bought for Texas schools, even though he refuses to follow their “no magic Darwin” guidelines. Curriculum? Guidelines? Actually, it could get worse than magic Darwin … Better stop it there. Follow UD News at Twitter!

Otherwise, what to make of this?

At Ricochet, Claire Berlinski (naughty girl, she is examining the intelligent design controversy as if there was something obvious to know about the universe we live in) says, (June 13, 2011),

What exactly is “political correctness?” Where does this idea come from, historically? What are its effects upon science, government, the public at large? Is it a single thing? How dangerous is it, really?

Depends. Some, who have dealt with PC on the ground, would say to anyone: Are you protected by a bureaucracy? Does your income and social position depend on others being forced to acknowledge you, even though you are useless or destructive to them? Are people expected to bark nonsense that upholds your position, for their own safety?

She adds, Read More ›