Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dr. Liddle responds to my question

Over at the Skeptical Zone, Dr. Liddle has graciously responded to my post, A quick question for Dr. Liddle and other skeptics. I began by asking: “What is Dr. Liddle’s definition of “matter,” and why does Dr. Liddle believe that an intelligent being has to conform to that definition?” What is matter? In my post, I proposed seven possible definitions of matter, and in her response, Dr. Liddle gave an eclectic definition which invoked most of the criteria I had suggested. For Dr. Liddle, it is axiomatic that matter must be composed of “stuff,” although she adds that “the configuration and energy of that ‘stuff’ is also part of what I mean by ‘material.’” She also maintains that “an entity Read More ›

Linc RNA–once believed useless–plays a role in the genome

Here is a piece over at Phys.Org dealing with “long, intergenic non-coding” RNA. “When we removed the specific lincRNA, we looked at the mouse brain and the progenitors were reduced. As a consequence probably, the population [of neurons] that sits on top of the cerebral cortex are reduced … It’s likely that in the future we’ll see a number of studies showing that other lincRNAs are involved in specific behaviors,” Arlotta said. “The brain likes this junk RNA.” Rinn and his colleagues have generated 18 strains of mutant mice, removing from each a different piece of “junk” genome, or so-called long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs). If the lincRNA truly had been “junk,” nothing should have happened. What the researchers found Read More ›

So now it’s the “creationists’” fault that Darwin’s followers can’t face facts?

In short, biologists must be wrong in thinking that there is no direction to evolution but admitting that is too controversial? So they have to keep it quiet by misrepresenting to the rest of us what “random evolution” means? Or if Kelly doesn't mean that, what DOES he mean? Read More ›

Retire this science idea, Edge: That there is a common toolkit of conserved genes

If indeed “Each lineage of ants contains about 4000 novel genes, but only 64 of these are conserved across all seven ant genomes sequenced so far,” why would anyone look to Darwin’s theory to explain anything about the history of ants? Read More ›