Core ID and ID-compatible hypotheses have various predictions. For example, there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA and genetic nature of the platypus, the predictions about designer drugs, long-term preservation mechanisms for conserving information that is not currently implemented, and retroviruses being capable of being used to implement designed changes. At this time the scientific research we have so far does not provide conclusive positive evidence for some of these predictions, although there are tantalizing glimpses that such predictions may become known to be true. There’s also some types of observed changes that happen so rapidly and repeatedly that they would seem to defy being within the domain of strictly Darwinian processes. But such research is just beginning. (And Ken Miller claims that ID cannot make predictions and research cannot occur…)

But then there’s the predictions specific to ID-compatible hypotheses such as front-loading.
Read More ›

Edward Rubin again finds hard evidence supporting a front loaded evolution. Front loading is a design engineering term generally used to describe design elements inserted for possible use in the future (contingency) as opposed to immediate use. The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is incapable of contingency planning. RM+NS can build based on experience but can’t build based on an abstract future. It is reactive not proactive. The front loading hypothesis in essence says the complex specified information necessary to construct the more complex machinery of life has been around since life appeared on the earth but much of it was preserved for expression in the far distant future. Natural selection cannot preserve unexpressed information for long against Read More ›

This of course comes as no surprise for those of us who hold that evolution was front-loaded (anatomical complexity in later animals was present but not expressed in the ancestral animals) by an intelligent designer. Nothing in macro-evolution makes sense except in the light of front loading! Excerpts with my emphasis: Surprises in sea anemone genome By Melissa Lee Phillips, The Scientist, 5/7/07 The study also found that these similarities were absent from fruit fly and nematode genomes, contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution. The findings suggest that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex, and fly and worm genomes lost some of that intricacy as they evolved. It’s surprising to find such a Read More ›

Pitt Professor Contends Biological Underpinnings Of Darwinian Evolution Not Valid

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else,” says Schwartz.

Read More ›

Rogue weeds defy rules of genetics

Other biologists are astonished by the findings. “It’s amazing,” says David Baulcombe, an expert on plant RNA at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK. “The notion that RNA carries the information almost seems like the only way it could happen.”

Read More ›

Biology’s next revolution
by Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl Woese
Nature 445, 369 (25 January 2007)

For those without access to Nature click here for a copy of the article. This link added on 5/11/2007.

The emerging picture of microbes as gene-swapping collectives demands a revision of such concepts as organism, species and evolution itself.

Read More ›

Alternate Title: Of Mice and Men and Evolutionary Dogma

“There has been a circular argument that if it’s conserved it has activity.” Edward Rubin, PhD, Senior Scientist, Genomics Division Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Read More ›

(this also servers as a partial response to a formal request for a response fielded by the UDer’s mortal enemies, the Pandas, specifically Dave Thomas in Take the Design Challenge!)

This is part 2 a of discussion of evolutionary algorithms. In (part 1): adventures in Avida, I exposed the fallacious, misleading, and over-inflated claims of a Darwinist research program called Avida. Avida promoters claim they refuted Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity (IC) with their Avida computer simulation. I discussed why that wasn’t the case. In addition, I pointed out Avida had some quirks that allowed high doses of radiation to spontaneously generate and resurrect life. Avida promoters like Lenski, Pennock, Adami were too modest to report these fabulous qualities [note: sarcasm] about their make-believe Avidian creatures in the make-believe world of Avida. One could suppose they refrained from reporting these embarrassing facts about their work because it would have drawn the ridicule the project duly deserves from the scientific community.
Read More ›

Campbell at JMU

Can you believe it? I was there that night also. I offer my competing account of the event.

Campbell argued that Darwin’s idea can’t be fully understood without understanding the idea Darwin was seeking to replace, namely (using today’s jargon) intelligent design. Thus to learn about Darwin correctly, one must learn about intelligent design.
Read More ›

UB writes: UB, only way thread, 164: >>My apologies to Origenes, he had asked for my comment, but I was away . . . . I am no expert of course, but thank you for asking me to comment. Frankly you didn’t need my opinion anyway. When you ask “What is the error in supposing something?” you likely already know there is no there there. And someone seriously asking you (like some odd prosecution of your logic) to enumerate what exactly is the biological error or the chemical error in the proposition of something that has never before been seen or recorded in either biology or chemistry — well whatever. Deacon begins by asking the question, what is necessary and Read More ›

David Coppedge writes: Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized. If traits can be shared across species, genera and even phyla, they are not being inherited from common ancestors. The findings might also cast stories about convergence and co-evolution in a completely different light. Let’s look at some of the news on this front. Introgression Last month, Current Biology posted a Primer on Introgression by four authors. Introgression refers to “lasting transfer of DNA from one of the species into the genome of the other” by means of hybridization and backcrossing. Basically, it describes “the incorporation of the DNA from one species into Read More ›

Yes, it seems some connected Alinsky School Community Organiser groups have been videotaped in the act, by independent, viral video journalists. Caught, in the act of unloading telling messages and riot equipment — shields and shield walls are not normal, “peaceful”/lawful protest equipment (and no, shields are not purely defensive) — from a rental truck: Another . . . augmented . . . vid clip allows us to recognise the renter of the truck (black shorts girl), even as longer shields are being handed out: This is of course directly connected to the incident where two police officers were shot by rioters in Louisville. So, we can readily connect riots, red guard cannon fodder cultural revolution activism, the ecosystem of Read More ›

As I checked the dashboard, I just saw that the current visit-count for the “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design” page stands at 50,307. Worth noting, even as onlookers are again invited to ponder its remarks. END PS: Table of contents: WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS: 1] ID is “not science” 2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously 3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research 4] ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions 5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” 6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists” 7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos Read More ›