Professor Larry Moran has kindly responded to my recent post questioning whether he, or anyone else, understands macroevolution. In the course of his response, titled, What do Intelligent Design Creationists really think about macroevolution?, Professor Moran posed a rhetorical question: I recently wrote up a little description of the differences between the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes showing that those differences are perfectly consistent with everything we know about mutation rates and the fixation of alleles in populations [Why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar?]. In other words, I answered Vincent Torley’s question [about whether there was enough time for macroevolution to have occurred – VJT]. That post was met with deafening silence from the IDiots. I wonder why? Read More ›

In my first post I discussed the concept of information, in particular whether information is contained in a physical object by its mere existence.  In this post I would like to consider an additional issue relating to information, namely, the point at which information arises or comes into existence. Information is often closely associated with meaning – meaning that is transmitted from a sender to a receiver.  As a result, some have suggested that information only exists when there is both a sender and a receiver who have a prior agreement about the protocols to encode the information and after there is a successful transmission, receipt and understanding of the information. However, viewing information as existing only after it has been transmitted Read More ›

Here. It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just. Freedom only for the just. And who gets to decide what is just? We do of course. How far behind can the brown shirts be?

In his Dead Dog post Sal quotes Jonathan Wells as follows: If we place a small amount of sterile salt solution in a test tube at just the right temperature and acidity, add a living cell, and then poke a hole in that cell with a sterile needle, the contents will leak out. We will have in our test tube all of the molecules needed for life, in just the right proportions (relative to each other) and already assembled into complex specified DNAs, RNAs, proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. But we will not be able to make a living cell out of them. We cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Later Sal specifically addresses Neil Rickert with the following question: Read More ›

Like contemporary hairstyles in a western movie, evolution also has its anachronisms. As we have discussed before, when the leading edge in biology was breeding, evolution was cast as  Read more

Comments by Skeptical Zone evolutionists are a never ending source of entertainment. I made what I thought was a simple, indisputable statement: I don’t see dead cells evolving into living ones. A dead dog stays a dead dog. Law of biogenesis, etc. But far be it for an evolutionist to ever be seen agreeing with a creationist on the most basic truths. In response to my claim, “A dead dog stays a dead dog,” Severky says, No, it doesn’t. 😯 Serversky justifies his claim by saying how a dead dog doesn’t stay a dead dog if its dead body parts get digested by another living organism. What about the dog’s memories and experiences, everything that defines the dog. Where did Read More ›

First, welcome aboard Eric and thank you for your first UD post . Eric uses the rings of Saturn to illustrate his point that natural objects, in and of themselves, do not “contain” information by their mere existence.  I disagree.  I am certainly not an information theorist, but I do have the advantage of having read an advance copy of Bill Dembski’s Being as Communion, a Metaphysics of Information (which I understand is due out in August). Eric says that the act of measurement of a state of affairs by an observer creates information; that the state of affairs in itself has not produced information.  You will need to wait for the book for a more complete explanation (the wait will be worth it; Read More ›