Will you provide your keen insight and communication skills to inform participants on this thread what the illustration illustrates.
For example, what are b3, b4 etc... b
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy
The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship--and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.
The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published after three independent judges deemed it worthy and ready for publication. The use of such judges is standard operating procedure among "peer-reviewed" academic journals, and is considered the gold standard for academic publication.
The readership for such a journal is incredibly small, and the Biological Society of Washington does not commonly come to the attention of the nation's journalists and the general public. Nevertheless, soon after Dr. Meyer's article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy. Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer's article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold.
Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, told The Scientist that Dr. Meyer's article came to her attention when members of the Biological Society of Washington contacted her office. "Many members of the society were stunned about the article," she told The Scientist, and she described the article as "recycled material quite common in the intelligent design community." Dr. Scott, a well known and ardent defender of evolutionary theory, called Dr. Meyer's article "substandard science" and argued that the article should never have been published in any scientific journal.
Within days, the Biological Society of Washington, intimidated by the response of the evolutionary defenders, released a statement apologizing for the publication of the article. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the society's governing council claimed that the article "was published without the prior knowledge of the council." The statement went on to declare: "We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." The society's president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, blamed the article's publication on the journal's previous editor, Richard Sternberg, who now serves as a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health. "My conclusion on this," McDiarmid said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."
What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise.
Accepting the scientific claim that the Cambrian explosion took place "about 530 million years ago," Meyer went on to explain that the "remarkable jump in the specified complexity or 'complex specified information' [CSI] of the biological world" cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA. Rather, some conscious design--thus requiring a Designer--is necessary to explain the emergence of these life forms.
In the remainder of his paper, Meyer attacks the intellectual inadequacies of evolutionary theory and argues for what is now known as the "design Hypothesis." As he argued, "Conscious and rational agents have, as a part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies." As he went on to assert, "We know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity." In other words, the development of the multitude of higher life forms found on the planet can be explained only by the guidance of a rational agent--a Designer--whose plan is evident in the design.
Meyer's article was enough to cause hysteria in the evolutionists' camp. Knowing that their theory lacks intellectual credibility, the evolutionists respond by raising the volume, offering the equivalent of scientific shrieks and screams whenever their cherished theory is criticized--much less in one of their own cherished journals. As Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute explained, "Instead of addressing the paper's argument or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate. They're trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts."
When the Biological Society of Washington issued its embarrassing apology for publishing the paper, the organization pledged that arguments for Intelligent Design "will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings," regardless of whether the paper passes peer review.
From the perspective of panicked evolutionists, the Intelligent Design movement represents a formidable adversary and a constant irritant. The defenders of Intelligent Design are undermining evolutionary theory at multiple levels, and they refuse to go away. The panicked evolutionists respond with name-calling, labeling Intelligent Design proponents as "creationists," thereby hoping to prevent any scientific debate before it starts.
Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise. The real significance of Intelligent Design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution.
For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.
_______________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr
"wealth of knowledge" -- nice euphemism for spam.
Will you provide your keen insight and communication skills to inform participants on this thread what the illustration illustrates.
For example, what are b3, b4 etc... b
I knew what he meant. Check the link, there are plenty of examples where program code *itself* is the "genome" being evolved.
See also:
www.genetic-programming.org (a source of information about the field of genetic programming and the field of genetic and evolutionary computation)Bibliography on Genetic Programming
Journal: "Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines"
Probably the grandaddy of all "evolving code" projects: Tierra
Modern "evolving code" project: Avida
And yes, it works also, contrary to the predictions of the anti-evolutionists.
No, why, do you think we should?
This is another scientific theory that was just proved wrong a few months ago by the re- election of President Bush .
You clearly don't have a very good grasp of what would constitute "proof" or "disproof". Don't quit your day job.
There is no contradiction between "turning off large numbers of potential Republican voters" and "Bush managed to win last November".
For example, note that with all Bush had going for him -- and all of Kerry's negatives (even the *Democrats* didn't really like him much), the election was *way* closer than the issues or the men would have warranted. Bush should have won that election in a walk. Instead, it was a late-night nailbiter, with the outcome finally depending on which way a couple of very close states went.
And if the candidates had been more closely matched in personality and competence, the Republicans would have lost handily. This time, Bush was very lucky that he faced a complete clown of an opponent -- and even *then* it wasn't a Republican blowout.
Maybe you're willing to accept "squeakers" every time, but I'm not.
And I have *personally* encountered more people than I can count who actually agree with more conservative principles than liberal ones, but who are primarily turned off from voting Republican because of the "don't you dare mention evolution it's deception from the devil" loudmouths, who aren't the majority among the Christian Right, but who make most of the noise and give the impression that maybe all conservative Christians are rejects from a filming of "Inherit the Wind". It does indeed scare a lot of potential voters away, whether or not you care to admit it.
No it isn't.
and therefore almost anything is possible.
No one makes that argument, but thanks so much for the straw man fallacy.
But that isn't science,
...which is why science doesn't do that, contrary to your dishonest accusation...
it's myth-making just as surely as someone making up religious stories.
Ooh, an admission?
Where is the math?
See my post #158.
That'll get you started. If the math doesn't work, the mechanism doesn't work.
The math does work.
If you don't have the math, you don't have the argument.
We have the math and the argument.
If you disagree, then you're cordially invited to respond to the same challenge I made to the other nitwits in post#158.
You really think so? Then I'll add you to the list of people that post #158 is directed towards. I await your critique, since you've got it all figured out, at least better than "all the intellectually blind evolutionists put together"...
As an X-atheist, evolutionist myself, I can tell you the arrogance and hostility you will encounter here is to be expected.
And, of course, there's nothing "arrogant" or "hostile" about dismissing "all the intellectually blind evolutionists" as having, "put together", less smarts than a single nine-year-old girl, right? You're one hell of a big hypocrite, Jorge.
They are some of the most arrogant and bitter people I have ever encountered.
You don't sound all that humble and sanguine yourself, Jorge.
But hey, now's your chance to put "all us intellectually blind evolutionists" in our place, son -- point out the mathematical errors in the papers I list in post #158. As an "X-evolutionist" (is that anything like an "X-Box"?), you should already know this material, right? Go for it.
Uh huh... Okay, then my post #158 (and followup #444) is directed at you too. Show us what you've got. We await enlightenment from your awsome knowledge in this field.
"The Mirage" is really good. I'm trying to figure out how to fit it into the List-O-Links. It doesn't really pertain to any specific item, but it belongs in the List. I'll work it out.
There's nothing "magical" about the way evolution works -- as you would know if you bothered to *LEARN* something about the subject before you spout off AGAIN about it... You just have no shame whatsoever, do you?
Nor is it in any way comparable to "alchemy" -- again, as any school student is capable of knowing if they just bother to read some books. It's not that hard. So what's your excuse?
where do we see matter organizing to HIGHER forms?
Many places, actually. Hell, plant an acorn and wait a few years. An oak tree is far more "organized matter" than the original acorn itself, and/or any of the liquid water, carbon-dioxide gas, or nitrogen gas which got turned into "tree matter". I hate to disappoint you, but matter organizing itself is *not* against the laws of nature, it happens all around us.
For matter organizing without even a "seed", see for example:
Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQAny other questions?Self-Organizing Systems: A Tutorial in Complexity
Spontaneous Order, Self-Organizing Systems, and Autocatakinetics
Self-Organization & Entropy - The Terrible Twins
Self-Organizing Systems Resources
THE SCIENCE OF SELFORGANIZATION AND ADAPTIVITY
Self-organization, Emergence and the Architecture of Complexity
Emergence of Constraint in Self-organizing Systems
Principia Cybernetica Web: Self-organization
Evolution of Complex Systems - Self Organization
Links on Complexity, Self-organization and Artificial Life
Good list. The Wikipedia article is the one I'll link to when the need arises. It's not only a good introduction to the subject, but it also has a link to "emergent properties," which is a related concept.
Yes, thank you, I've seen and linked that page before. However, it's entirely irrelevant to the question I posed you. Please try again.
Because scientists who advocate evolutionary theories have perpetuated hoaxes over many decades. The most famous "examples" of evolution have turned out to be frauds. Arguments from authority are always the weakest kind of argument, especially when the authorities are not averse to perpetuating fraudulent evidence.
Evolutionists tend to miss the forest for the trees. If evolution happened gradually, the fossil record should record this. It doesn't. The fossil record indicates stasis in species.
The only alternative evolutionary theory is evolution by giant leaps, which is plainly absurd.
Will you provide your keen insight and communication skills to inform participants on this thread what the illustration illustrates. For example, what are b3, b4 etc... b
*shrug*. Okay, but I don't see what point there is in giving a mini-tutorial on how to read mass spectrometry charts... Did you miss that day in school or something?
I'm a little rusty, and too tired to look it up right now, so if I misremember some details, feel free to consult an appropriate text.
These are charts of the results of a tandem mass spectrometer analysis of two different proteins (one on the top, another on the bottom). The initial processing stage of the MS/MS analysis involves charging the protein molecules and subjecting them to collisions, which breaks them up into varying sized fragments, which are then in a sense "weighed and counted" by the spectrometer. The chart is the output of the proportional tallies of countless such molecular destruction-derbies.
The horizontal scale (X-axis) is the mass of the fragments detected (in daltons, IIRC), while the vertical scale (Y-axis) is the proportion of fragments which were of a given size.
The b1, b2, b3 etc. peaks are the different-sized ionized fragments that were captured -- "b1" is the fragments which consisted of one amino acid, "b2" is the fragments consisting of two amino acids, etc. Due to the nature of the preparation process, the "b" fragments all start at one specific end of the protein -- so the "b3" three-amino-acid fragments consist of the first-second-and-third amino acids in the protein, not the 4th-5th-6th, or whatever. And it's also possible to count the fragments starting from the other end, these are denoted as y1, y2, etc.
Given the relative size and positions of the peaks, it's straightforward to reconstruct the actual amino-acid composition and sequence of the original protein. These are the letters across the top of the chart -- every type of amino acid has a standard one-letter code, rather like the two-letter code standard abbreviations for the US states (TX = Texas, etc.)
So in short, this is the raw data by which the actual sequence structure of the two proteins was determined.
But really, tallhappy, you weren't all that interested in learning about spectrometer charts, were you? You were actually hoping that I wouldn't recognize those from one of the many papers I linked in post #185, so that you'd have a cheap and childish excuse to accuse me of not actually having read them, right? Grow up and stop playing immature "gotcha" games. If you want to discuss the actual issues of this thread, feel free. But if you want to play games and behave like an ass, don't waste my time.
Those guys are busy working at science. What you confuse for a scientific mind in my case is amateurism plus too much time.
But you're very gracious considering the slops I dump over your head every time you trot in that Creation-Evolution Headlines guy.
I studied evolution since high school. After reading "Theory in Crisis" and "Icons of evolution". I began anew. It is a philosophical illusion...maybe deliberate. I would stand amidst your elephants unafraid.
And their missing ancestors too!
...and anyone'scientist' can see information only increases with Mind...not accidents, which turn music into noise.
Oh really? I can think of *one* in the past 140 years, and it's *still* not known who actually perpetrated that one (Piltdown Man), or for what purpose. Plus it was *evolutionary scientists* themselves who eventually recognized and exposed it for what it was.
The most famous "examples" of evolution have turned out to be frauds.
You're hallucinating, but then that seems to be pretty common from your side of the debate. But do feel free to actually mention some alleged examples, so that I can point out how uninformed you are on this topic.
And no, errors or sloppiness don't count -- in order to support your accusations, you'll have to provide examples of actual knowing "frauds", not mistakes or corner-cutting which was later corrected. So that leaves out "Nebraska Man" or Haekel's embryos and such. Plus it'll have to be something that was actually used as a "most famous examples" for "decades", as you allege. Good luck.
Friendly warning: If you've made the mistake of reading Wells "Icons of Evolution" anti-evolution book -- and *believing* it -- you need to read these before you attempt to respond: Icons of Evolution FAQs . They document just how wildly off-base (and how much of a *documented FRAUD*) Wells himself is in his bizarre accusations. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Arguments from authority are always the weakest kind of argument,
...which is why evolutionary biology rests on evidence and testing, not "arguments from authority". You seem to be confused here -- it's the *creationists* which rely so heavily on "arguments from authority". Heck, look at all the posts in this very thread where anti-evolutionists have tried to use quotes from various "authorities" to somehow establish something about evolution.
especially when the authorities are not averse to perpetuating fraudulent evidence.
Support or retract this charge -- if you're honorable enough to do so. Be sure to name the "authorities" you're attempting to accuse -- the usual creationist hand-waving about the Nefarious Evolutionism Conspiracy (tm) just don't cut it.
Evolutionists tend to miss the forest for the trees. If evolution happened gradually, the fossil record should record this. It doesn't.
It does, actually -- from what creationist Cracker Jack box did you get your "knowledge" of the fossil record?
The fossil record indicates stasis in species.
...as well as change. Your creationist "talking points" sort of "forgot" to give you the whole story, didn't they? Speaking of fraud...
The only alternative evolutionary theory is evolution by giant leaps, which is plainly absurd.
False dichotomy, there are numerous other scenarios -- including the ones by which evolution occurs, which have been verified in countless ways.
Please try to *learn* something about science before you attempt to critique it, eh? You are, quite frankly, just making a fool of yourself here. And be sure to take my post #158 challenge, along with the rest of your "I don't actually know evolutionary biology, but I know it's all wrong" friends. I'm tired of the uninformed horsecrap -- put up or shut up.
If True Believer Darwinuts have so many amazing facts....why did Gould and Sagan, and now Dawkins, refuse to debate?
[answer, they always lost]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.