The twentieth century’s revolution in molecular biology has produced volumes of sequence data which evolutionists have marshaled in defense of their theory. One high-profile example is the molecular similarity between humans and chimpanzees. First proteins and later the genomes of these two species were found to be practically identical. These findings have often been touted as compelling confirmations of evolution. But there are also differences—significant differences. One example is the differences in the Y chromosome, which recent research has elucidated. These differences are explained by evolutionists, of course, as arising from various evolutionary processes. But the differences are significant and the evolutionary scenarios are speculative. In fact a recent paper appealed to several different mechanisms in order to explain the Read More ›

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has never been a friend of materialistic evolution. Granville Sewell’s arguments concerning it at the following two links are worth pondering: Link 1: from the book IN THE BEGINNING Link 2: video presentation “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution”

Review Of Chapter 13 Of Signature In The Cell, by Stephen Meyer, HarperOne Publishers, ISBN: 9780061894206

I never would have suspected that the literary sensation Dr Seuss’ The Cat In The Hat Comes Back would be used to make a point about the devastating shortcomings of origin of life theories (1). But when I read one of the later chapters of Meyer’s Signature In The Cell which in one foul swoop discredited Hermann Muller’s fortuitous origins of DNA, Henry Quastler’s DNA self replication hypothesis and Manfred Eigen’s ideas on hypercycles I could not help but be fascinated by his use of this children’s classic in his exposition. Of course in their own unique ways each of these scientists became steadfastly convinced that they were onto something of great significance that would lead to fruitful avenues on the all important question of how life had begun.

Muller drew inferences from his own work on viruses, in particular bacteriophages (‘bacteria eaters’), equating these simple organisms to “a gene that copies itself within the cell” (2). He envisioned these as being somehow analogous to primitive DNA floating around in the chemical-rich soup of the early earth (2). Quastler on the other hand suggested that polynucleotides could act as templates for replication through complementary base pairing (3). And Eigen chose to assume that ‘self-reproducing molecular systems’ involving RNA molecules and basic enzymes could somehow supply an early form of transcription and translation, later forming hypercycles that would have preceded the arrival of the earliest cells (4).

So how is the Cat in the Hat relevant? Crucial aspects of the above mechanistic propositions, writes Meyer, parallel the antics of our feline friend as he unwillingly redistributes the mess he has created in the house of his none-too-happy hosts. Origin of life scientists have similarly been trying for decades to “clean up the problem of explaining the origin of [biological] information” only to find that they have “simply transferred the problem elsewhere- either by presupposing some other unexplained sources of information or by overlooking the indispensable role of an intelligence” (1). And their modern day brethren, with the apparent sophistication of computer-housed evolutionary algorithms, have fared little better. Meyer’s unpacking of the reality behind Ev, for example, described by its author Thomas Schneider as “a simple computer program” that attempts to evolve the information content of DNA binding sites in a hypothetical genome, is a case in point (5). In Ev Schneider specifies the sequence of these DNA binding sites and incorporates the code for the binding site ‘recognizer’ (protein) into the genome (5). The relative penalties for mis-binding or non-binding of the recognizer to sequences are pre-set into the program (5). Read More ›

A friend of mine sent me a link to a recent article by Giberson. In it Giberson claims that the problem with ID is that “first they need a fertile idea—one that generates new scientific knowledge”. I think it has already done this.

Many eminent scientists have noted that the reductionist way of looking at biology in the 20th century cannot remain forever the way biology operates. Carl Woese’s “A New Biology for a New Century” is a good example of this. The question, though, is what to replace the reductionist view with.
Read More ›

Judging from the comments to the homochirality post, Darwin (aka evolution) still gets support and Pasteur still endures ridicule. Some suggested that I had misread the meteorite data, others suggested that homochirality is easily obtained in the laboratory, while still others proposed circularly polarized light. So it is with a certain sense of vindication that I read the New Scientist article, Did exploding stars shatter life’s mirror? The article begins by saying all life is L-amino, and then admits that all amino acids found on meteorites has an excess of L-amino. “For every type of amino acid found in meteorites there is an excess of the left-handed form over the right-handed of between 2 and 18 per cent,” says Uwe Read More ›

Once again evolution has come up with an ingenious design, this time a multilayered protective material with a range of potential applications. The material was discovered in the shell of a deep-sea snail, Crysomallon squamiferum, which is able to withstand powerful crab attacks. Here is the summary of the new findings:  Read more

Your tax dollars being used against you: ————————————— NAS Climate Report: ‘Partisan, Closed Minded’ The National Academy of Sciences Thursday reasserted its opinion that the Earth’s climate has warmed to crisis levels and that human activity – the burning of fossil fuels – is the primary cause. In its 869-page report, the NAS, a group of American researchers that advises the U.S. government, urged Congress to adopt specific policy measures to halt the undesirable effects of global warming. James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, finds the NAS membership is fatally comprised of global warming activists who are pursuing a political agenda and ignoring competing scientific data. Taylor was project manager for the Fourth International Read More ›

One of the most popular evidences proclaimed for evolution in recent years is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The cousin genomes are about 99% similar and this has repeatedly been expounded as an obvious proof text of evolution. But these comparisons did not include the finicky Y chromosome which only recently has been decoded from the chimp genome. These new results show an entirely different picture.  Read more

Big news at Craig Venter’s Synthetic Genomics: Summary: Link 1 Press Release: Link 2 The rhetoric is interesting. What they’ve done is stuck a synthetic genome inside a nonsynthetic cell. Nonetheless, they’ve slipped into talking of a “synthetic bacterial cell.” Indeed, one headline reads “The First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell.” This is hype. If something is going to be called “synthetic,” shouldn’t the whole of it be synthesized and not merely a minuscule portion of it? Also, does such a cell knowably signal design and, if so, why wouldn’t cells untouched by Synthetic Genomics do the same, i.e., implicate design?

Greetings to all. I have been interested for some time in the question-begging character of the logic of natural selection. This is old hat, of course, but just in a nutshell: a new well-adapted trait must first exist in an individual before it can be selected, so while natural selection could potentially explain the proliferation of such a trait throughout a population, it could never explain its origin. Of course, the Darwinist will say, No problem, new traits are thrown up by chance due to random genetic mutation. There are two things wrong with this reply, however. The first is a conceptual point. Even if it were the case that every mutation at the level of the genome were indeed Read More ›

For many years the molecular sequences in the bat genome have not been cooperating, and recent research continues to confirm these findings. If evolution is true, then we must believe that the incredible echolocation ability found in some bats arose multiple times, by evolving independently. That’s not easy for evolutionists to explain. How could such uncanny design details repeat themselves via blind biological variation (no, natural selection doesn’t help)?  Read more

The DNA code, which translates DNA sequences into protein sequences, has always been claimed as extremely compelling evidence for evolution. The code was first described in the mid twentieth century and, among other things, was found to be universal, or nearly so. The same DNA code is used in the cells in your brain and your big toe. The same DNA code is used in different species. The same DNA code is even used across the major kingdoms. All tissues, all species use the same code? Surely they were not independently created—they must have evolved. And if the code varied, on the other hand, evolution would surely be falsified. In one fell swoop, the DNA code not only is another Read More ›

Last month, I noted with pleasure that Dr. Karl Giberson appeared to have extended an olive branch to ID people, and I wrote a reply here in a similar spirit.  It seemed to me then that Dr. Giberson was showing a breadth of mind and a listening attitude that was unusual among theistic evolutionists, and I genuinely wanted to encourage it, and to encourage ID supporters to respond graciously to his overture.

I am disappointed to report that this month, Dr. Giberson has taken two steps backward for his previous step forward, and has displayed a narrowness of mind of exactly the sort that has provoked ID/TE frictions in the past.

I am referring to his Biologos column, published on May 10, 2010, entitled “Would You Like Fries With That Theory?”  The condescension toward the common man implied in the title is matched only by the condescension toward the common man (and others) frankly expressed in this article. Read More ›

Francisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse: Dear Prof. Ayala, I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Read More ›