“Searching for alien life? Check out failed stars”, we learn via Clara Moskowitz (MSNBC, 4/1/2011): “Potential exists on free-floating planets and sub-brown dwarfs, researcher says”:

Researcher Viorel Badescu of the Polytechnic University of Bucharest in Romania recently investigated the possibilities for life on free-floating planets (FFPs) and sub-brown dwarfs (SBDs) that might contain lakes of the chemical ethane. He found that such life is not impossible, though it would be significantly different from life on Earth. His findings were detailed in the August 2010 issue of the journal Planetary and Space Science.

Solvents? Well, “Synthesis of observational data makes it possible to conceive Read More ›

“Evolution of cognition might be down to brain chemistry”, Andy Coghlan reports, (New Scientist, 28 March 2011): Philipp Khaitovich of the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai, China, and colleagues analysed brain tissue from deceased humans, chimpanzees and rhesus macaques to study the concentrations of 100 chemicals linked with metabolism. In the human prefrontal cortex, the levels of 24 of these were drastically different from levels in the corresponding brain regions of the other primates. In the cerebellum, however, there were far fewer differences between humans and the other animals, with just six chemicals showing different concentrations. This suggests that, since our lineage split off from other primates, the evolution of metabolism in the thinking and learning parts of Read More ›

Here.

Week July 18th to 22nd inclusive.

Presenters will include:

Prof Steve Fuller, Warwick University
Prof Guillermo Gonzales, Grove City College, Pennsylvania, USA
Dr David Galloway, Vice President Royal College of Surgeons, Glasgow
John Langlois, Barrister
Dr Alastair Noble, Director, Centre for Intelligent Design, Glasgow.
Prof Chris Shaw, Queens University, Belfast.
Dr Jonathan Wells, Discovery Institute, Seattle, USA
David Williams, Lawyer

Other Tutors to be advised.

Bursaries / Scholarships are available as appropriate.

In the first instance visit our web site for more details:-

http://www.c4id.org.uk/

Some thoughts:

Read More ›

Or sea slugs? Like, humans had 100, 000 genes, which proved we were a big-brained ape, then 30, 000, a bit more than a worm. Oh but wait, the fern has 250,000 genes and someone who has never kept a fern can be confident that they’re mostly junk. Now, ten years on, here’s the kind of thing we hear: Since the human genome was sequenced, we know more about our own history, and the lines between us and other species have blurred, Cole-Turner said. A comparison with the Neanderthal genome revealed that Neanderthals likely mated with our ancestors, since between 1 percent and 4 percent of some modern humans’ DNA came from Neanderthals. Even the genome from the first amphibian Read More ›

In “Getting Over the Code Delusion” (The New Atlantis, Summer 2010), Steve Talbott muses on the mystique around the genetic code in past decades, especially in the light of modern findings: Meanwhile, the epigenetic revolution is slowly but surely making its way into the popular media — witness the recent Time magazine cover story, “Why DNA Isn’t Your Destiny.” The shame of it is that most of the significance of the current research is still being missed. Judging from much that is being written, one might think the main thing is simply that we’re gaining new, more complex insights into how to treat the living organism as a manipulable machine.The one decisive lesson I think we can draw from the work Read More ›

In the latest issue of Nature, a definitive role for pseudogenes is established. In the last sentence of the Abstract the authors conclude: These findings attribute a novel biological role to expressed pseudogenes, as they can regulate coding gene expression, and reveal a non-coding function for mRNAs. Haven’t read the full article* (no time at present), but there’s a related link at PhysOrg.com that gives an overview. Yes, “junk” DNA now “communicates” with itself. A new “language”, an RNA language, is discovered. Another 30,000 pieces of functional information (over and above proteins) are part of cell architecture. And even more for Darwinists to explain per RM+NS. And the old standard explanation, of gene duplication and pseudogenes ‘evolving’ new function, takes Read More ›

I would like to thank Dr. Sullivan for his recent post, Nature, Artifacts, Meaning and Providence which has helped to clear the air enormously. In his closing comments, Dr. Sullivan calls for calm in the debate over life’s origin, and urges that the origin of life should be examined dispassionately, in an atmosphere free from theological bias. He is of course quite right, and in this post, I intend to engage him on precisely those terms. What I propose to do is address some general issues raised by Dr. Sullivan in his latest post on ID.

Life – an agreed definition?

While our views on the formal conditions for something’s being alive are somewhat divergent, I think we can now agree on the finalistic conditions.
Read More ›

Rick Sternberg, PhD PhD is one of the finest and most courageous evolutionary biologists on the planet. He recently has come to the defense of Stephen Meyer by Asking Darrel Falk to Pick a Number

Rick points out a peculiar claim by Darrel Falk which can be falsified:

almost certainly much, if not most, of the DNA plays no role, and in many cases can be harmful

Darrel Falk
Professor of Biology

Sternberg counters with an implicit wager after first providing some insights:

I have long questioned the assumption that most genomic DNA sequences are “nonsensical” or “junk.” And given the data that have emerged over the past seven or so years, a functionalist view of genome has robust empirical support. It is for this reason that I think many of the arguments presented by the Biologos Foundation are “wrong on many counts,” to borrow a phrase from Darrel Falk.

Read More ›

This new paper by James Shapiro may be of interest . In it he elaborates on the central dogma of molecular biology. It has become very complex since the old “one gene one protein and all the rest is junk” days. Here is the summary table. Conventional expression of the Central Dogma of Molecule Biology: (DNA ==>2X DNA) ==> RNA ==> Protein ==> Phenotype Contemporary statements of molecular information transfer in cell: 1. DNA + 0 ==> 0 2. DNA + Protein + ncRNA ==> Chromatin 3. Chromatin + Protein + ncRNA ==> DNA replication, chromatin maintenance/reconstitution 4. Protein + RNA + lipids + small molecules ==> Signal transduction 5. Chromatin + Protein + signals ==> RNA (primary transcript) 6. RNA Read More ›

Are cracks appearing in the Darwinian facade? There appears to be increasing recognition in at least some genomic centres that Darwin needs to be laid quietly to rest as scientific discoveries progress. Professor John Dupre of Egenis for instance writes in the Genomics Network Newsletter – April 2009 – Does Genomics Need Darwin? (p.23) “Whereas until recently it was thought that the vast majority of the genome (>98%) not directly involved in coding for proteins was ‘junk’, perhaps selfish DNA involved in its own project of colonizing the genome, this view is now widely discredited. At least 70% of the genome appears to be transcribed, and it is increasingly suspected that much of this is involved in regulation of genome expression. Especially prominent Read More ›

A friend draws my attention to an essay published in Nature (458, 30 (5 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458030a) by a sociologist, who advises that we cannot live by skepticism alone.

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism – social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Harry Collins is director of the Centre for the Study of Knowledge Expertise Science at Cardiff University, UK. He is currently working on a book about tacit and explicit knowledge.

As another friend points out, this guy’s views are chilling:

One can justify anything with scepticism. Recently a philosopher acting as an expert witness in a court case in the United States claimed that the scientific method, being so ill-defined, could support creationism. Worse, scientific and technological ideas are nowadays being said to be merely a matter of lifestyle, supporting the idea that wise folk may be justified in choosing technical solutions according to their preferences — an idea horribly reminiscent of ‘the common sense of the people’ favoured in 1930s Germany. Some social scientists defend parents’ right to reject vaccines and other unnatural treatments because a lack of danger cannot be absolutely demonstrated. At the beginning of the century, President Thabo Mbeki’s policies denied anti-retroviral drugs to HIV-positive pregnant mothers in South Africa. Some saw this as a justified blow against Western imperialism, given that the safety and efficacy of the treatment cannot be proven beyond doubt.

Well now, some responses: Read More ›

The Natural History Museum (NHM) has issued a press release on the 5th December 2008, extolling the virtues of its new book ‘99% Ape: How evolution adds up’ and why Intelligent Design is flawed. This book has been written by academics at the Open University (OU) in the UK, and it is aimed at pre-university level (level 1), either for general interest, or to prepare potential students for study at university levels 2 and 3 – written, apparently, for those with no prior knowledge of science. Pointing out errors in such works is in the public interest to maintain scientific accuracy. It would be a disgrace for anyone to suffer for merely pointing out that material in a textbook from Read More ›

This isn’t intelligent design, per se, but just something that popped up on the Drudge Report and caught my attention. It’s about a research article that appeared in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry where the researchers conclude that marijuana use causes earlier onset of psychosis.

Read More ›