AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

You can download the available genome data, along with those from related species, at that site. From what I read about ID, the evidence for design should be trivial to find, and even a modest PC is good enough to do some quite sophisticated and original genome analysis these days.

Hey, I've got a question: Where can I get some decent Windows-based software for doing genome comparisons? (preferably something with a big help file. :-) How much of an education in molecular biology would one need to figure out one of these programs & do some basic comparisons?

For that matter, what's a good Windows-based data visualization tool? I want to make cool-looking visualizations of genome data like I sometimes see in journal articles.

We would have ended up with a considerably different kind of science . . .

The character of contemporary science is defined by its objects. It need not be exclusively devoted to matter and motion. The idea that only particular objects are worthy of our science is in no small way due to the rapid increase of knowledge of particular objects.

This is not what we would call a research discovery.

Absolutely false and you know it. In fact the greatest discovery of the human genome project was that while we have only some 30,000 odd genes they produce some 100,000 different proteins. This gave definite proof that the DNA called moronically by the evolutionists 'junk' was the real engine of living organisms. It destroyed completely the gene-centric idea of the operation of organisms and showed that DNA is indeed a programming code which controls the functioning not just of the genes, but of the entire organism.

Biology is not taught till High School.

In fact, this is not quite correct. My daughters, from grade-school on, had "science" classes that included increasingly complex concepts from the major disciplines.

They know how to think from the day they are born...

I'm going to surprise even myself and agree with you on this point.

I watched my first child in the process of "discovering" herself in the first few weeks after she was born. I will just say it was amazing to see her find her hands and arms and figure out their uses.

Also, I did some volunteer teaching at my daughters' grade school from 3rd to 5th grades (brought in my telescope and we looked at sunspots and discussed the solar cycle, etc.). I was very impressed not only with their curiosity, but the insight involved in their questions.

One of the best tests of a scientific theory is to see how effective it is in making predictions. Can you give me an example of a prediction that macroevolution makes?
Sure. I wrote about this on an earlier thread. Here, post 160.

Here's another macroevolutionary prediction (two, actually):

THE FUTURE OF MANKIND

Two questions are frequently asked about the future of mankind. The first one is, What is the probability that the human species will break up into several species? The answer is clear: none at all. Humans occupy all the concievable niches from the Arctic to the tropics that a humanlike animal might occupy. Furthermore, there is no geographic isolation between any of the human populations. Whenever geographically isolated human races developed in the last 100,000 years, they interbred readily with other races as soon as contact was reestablished. Today there is far too much contact among all human populations for any kind of effective long-term isolation that might lead to speciation.
The second question is, Could the now existing human species evolve as a whole into a "better" new species? Could Man become superman? Here again, one cannot be hopeful. To be sure, there is abundant genetic variation within the human genotype to serve as material for appropriate selection, but modern conditions are very different from the time when some populations of Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens. At that time, our species consisted of small troops, in each of which there was strong natural selection with a premium on those characteristics that eventually resulted in Homo sapiens. Furthermore, as in most social animals, there was undoubtedly strong group selection.
Modern humans, by contrast, constitute a mass society and there is no indication of any natural selection for superior genotypes that would permit the rise of the human species above its present capacities. With selection for improvement no longer being exercised, there is no chance for the evolution of a superior human species. Indeed, some students of this problem fear that a deterioration of our species is inevitable under the conditions of a mass society. However, genetic deterioration is not an immediate danger, considering the high variability of the human gene pool.
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (2001), pg 261

It has no predictive or explanatory power

This is also restrictive to the character of science, for it determines that its object conforms only to present evidence. Patrick Henry is correct on this.

Where can I get some decent Windows-based software for doing genome comparisons?

You might be happy with this.

jennyp post


E-SKEPTIC FOR JUNE 21, 2002
Copyright 2002 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic
magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print,
distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage
you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can
subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to:
join-skeptics@lyris.net
---------------------------------
Greetings fellow e-Skepticers, and happy summer solstice, the longest day of 
the year. May the sun god continue to shine on us all. The following is a 
result of a recent interesting coincidence that goes a long way toward 
understanding on evolution works.

DARWIN, HAMLET, AND HOW EVOLUTION WORKS:
AN INTERESTING (BUT NOT UNEXPECTED) COINCIDENCE
By Michael Shermer

Here is an interesting coincidence on Darwin, Hamlet, and how evolution 
works, that itself needs no "intelligent designer" to explain.

In the latest issue of Scientific American, the Editor-in-Chief John Rennie 
wrote a brilliant article entitled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense," 
debunking creationist arguments 
(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EED

F&pageNumber=4&catID=2). In that article he used an example from my book, Why 
People Believe Weird Things, from Chapter 10 "Confronting Creationists: 
Twenty-Five Creationist Arguments, Twenty-Five Evolutionist Answers" (also 
published as a separate pamphlet and available at www.skeptic.com). In that 
chapter I cite a computer program designed and run by a friend and colleague 
of mine when I was teaching at Glendale College, Richard Hardison, on how 
long it would take a monkey to randomly type "To be or not to be." It would 
take 26 to the power of 13 trials for success, which is 16 times as great as 
the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the 4.5 billion years of our 
solar system. But Hardison designed a computer program that acts like natural 
selection: it preserved the gains and eradicated the mistakes. In other 
words, the computer "selected" for or against letters as they were randomly 
produced (if "T" preserve, if "Z" skip), and took an average of only 335.2 
trials to produce the sequence TOBEORNOTTOBE. It took only 90 seconds. 
Hardison calculated that the entire Hamlet play could be done in 4.5 days. 

This appeared in Richard Hardison's spiral-bound course reading material in 
1984 for a course he and I co-taught on the history of great ideas; it was 
then published in 1985 in book form as "Upon the Shoulders of Giants," 
(University Press of America) published in a second edition in 1988 (as cited 
in my own book).

If that computer sequence sounds familiar to readers, it is because Richard 
Dawkins did something very similar in his book The Blind Watchmaker, except 
he used a different phrase--"Methinks it is like a weasel"--completely 
independent of Hardison, and neither one of them knew about the other's 
program. Dawkins book came out in 1986; he produced his program in 1984. 
There is no way he could have known about Hardison's work because it wasn't 
published in any form that would have been available to anyone but the 
students in our class. And Hardison didn't know about Dawkins' program.


But how interesting or unusual a coincidence is this? Dawkins and I had an 
e-mail exchange about that, and here is his rather satisfactory explanation 
requiring neither Jungian synchronicity nor paranormal shenanigans:

"Thank you for clearing up the mystery. Yes, the coincidence is fascinating.
But it is not all THAT surprising, and you have spotted that it makes a good
lesson in paranormal debunking. Once one has grasped (from Darwin) the
paramount importance of ratcheted CUMULATIVE selection when faced with the
Argument from Statistical Improbability, one's thoughts naturally turn to
the famous monkeys who have so often been used to dramatise that Argument.
It becomes the obvious simulation to do, to get the point across to
doubters. It can easily be done with a little BASIC program, and that is
what both Hardison and I did, at what must have been almost exactly the same
time, 1984 or 1985. As for the superficial details, those pesky monkeys have
always typed Shakespeare. Hamlet is his most famous play. To Be or Not to Be
is the most famous passage from that play.  I would probably have chosen it
myself, except that I thought the dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio on
chance resemblances in clouds would make a neat intro: hence Methinks it is
like a Weasel.

Reverting to Richard Hardison, the one thing he did which I did not (and I
am now kicking myself for not thinking of it) was to extrapolate to the time
it would take to type the entire play. The speed at which computers happened
to run in 1985 is, of course, not particularly interesting now: just an
arbitrary point on the Moore's Law curve. But it would now be interesting to
do the extrapolation again for (a) modern computers and (b) monkeys. Make
some sort of conservative estimate for how much slower a monkey is than a
computer. 4.5 days would expand to  --  what?  --  tens of millions of
years? Hundreds of millions? It will still be very very short compared to
the random monkey without cumulative selection."
----------------------
Here is the section from Hardison's 1985 edition, with the narrative passage 
from pages 123-124 and the computer program from Appendix E. I typed the 
entire thing in for interested readers. Remember, this program was for a 
computer from the early 1980s--very primitive!

IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY RICHARD HARDISON, 1985, University Press 
of America, pp. 123-124:

"Taking exception to the view that orderliness could be chance-determined, 
the anti-evolutionists point out that while the monkeys might type Hamlet in 
theory, they could not do so in the real world, for the time required would 
be much too great. 

Let us imagine an intrepid monkey punching away at a typewriter keyboard. For 
the monkey to stumble onto just the few words, "To Be Or Not To Be" would 
require a prohibitive improbability. Mathematical expectancy would lead us to 
anticipate some 26 to the 13th power number of trials before the litttle 
rascal prints out the desired sequence and sends his typewriter off for a 
much-needed ribbon replacement. This number of trials is so large that it is 
roughly 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in 
the four and one half billion years of the solar system's existence.

These enormous numbers apply for just the first 13 letters of Hamlet's 
siloloquy, and for every additional letter, the odds against continued 
success grow by leaps and bounds. More significant still is the fact that 
producing Hamlet is child's play when compared with constructing the human 
eye or inventing the process of reproduction. Rather discouraging.

However, this just isn't the way evolution works. To the contrary, nature 
keeps the successes and discards the failures. The gains are perpetuated, so 
to continue the typewriter analogy, when our simian friend happens upon a T, 
that letter is kept and he goes on randomly typing until he strikes an O, 
which in turn is retained. And so on.

What then are the chances of arriving at the opening line of Hamlet's 
question with this scheme of modified randomness? At first glance, this may 
seem the kind of problem that is not suited to calculation (since one end of 
the distribution curve is infinite) but it is possible, using a simple 
formula that is proved by calculus and infinite geometric series, to arrive 
at the theoretical number of trials that would be expected (338), and it is 
also possible to program a computer to test the calculations empirically. Let 
us have the computer randomize alphabet selection until a T is drawn. Then it 
will be programmed to do the same for the O and continue accordingly for the 
desired 13 letters. Interested readers should consult APPENDIX E for a print 
out of the "Basic" program that will perform this test of empirical 
probability ten successive times.

When running the program through a home computer 1000 times, it developed 
that an average of 335.2 trials were required in order to produce the 
sequence of letters "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Small computers do not have perfect 
random number generators, but the outcome gives reasonable support to the 
theoretical expectancy of 338. Clearly 338 is a number of vastly different 
magnitude than the number of seconds that have elapsed in the history of the 
solar system.

Extending this computer program so that it would construct the entire play 
would be a task of Herculean proportions, but if this were done, the actual 
writing of the play would require only about four and one half days for the 
relatively slow home computers of today."

THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY 
RICHARD HARDISON

10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON
11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET"
12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING"
13 PRINT "SUCCESSES."
14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS
15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE"
16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO
17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT"
18 PRINT "LETTER"
30 N = 0
40 FOR G = 1 TO 10
50 T = 0
60 GOTO 80
70 X = INT (26 * RND (1)) + 1: RETURN
80 GOSUB 70
90 N = N + 1

ETC.

Already over 300 posts! LOL! I will never catch up!

And what is the point? Are scientific theories to be subject to vote?

That seems to be the point of the article is it not? That scientific theories are subject to the vote of the 'elite' in this board (made up of people with phd's in science that never accomplished anything).

A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that. It has little to do with Intelligent Design theory.

Oh really? And how can one use design to discover things when those things are supposedly random? How can randomness have order? How can science discover order in biology and every other scientific field if nature is the result of random events?

"Always" is a pretty strong word - be careful how you deploy it ;)

Point well taken, but, in this case, "always" comes pretty darn close to the truth from my observations!

I will never catch up!

Just read faster...and selectively :-)

My, my - this thread is certainly proving to have legs! Nebullis, you certainly know how to gin up a lively discussion.

You're lucky to find a biologist who will even discuss the concept. It's rare to find anyone who does work in biology who's even curious about design. It doesn't bring anything to the table.

Totally wrong. It is evolution that brings nothing to the table. It is evolution that gets thoroughly discredited with every single biological discovery. Let's see, in 1859 Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation does not occur, so much for abiogenesis which it took evolutionists some 10 years to take out of their philosophy. Then in the beginning of the 1900's Mendel's work was rediscovered, it discredited Darwin's UNSCIENTIFIC 'melding' theory and it took evolutionists decades to make up a story to reconcile it. Then in the 1950's DNA was discovered and evolutionists had to run for the hills again but this time it was not so convincing, the creation of new genes is well nigh impossible at random and many scientists said so. Then came the genome project which got rid of the self-serving but totally unscientific claim by evolutionists that all DNA not in genes was junk and just the remnants of mutations and previous species. It showed that genes were nothing, and that the junk was what made organisms tick and furthermore that the mechanisms were so intricate that they could never have arisen at random. Now the evos are trying to say that evolution is the result of some kind of an algorithm which makes everything fit. Well when someone shows me a thinking rock, or a thinking cloud, I will believe that nonsense. Personally I am a million times more likely to believe that a million monkeys with typewriters wrote Shakespeare's plays.

More seriously I don't have a high opinion of intrinsic human nature. I believe strongly that man without God will find himself opressing someone whom he finds an advantage over whether temporary or inherent. And justifying it to himself and others on moral grounds.

And you think a theist monarch wouldn't???

You are arguing against ad-hoc, self serving interpretations of a moral code. And I agree completely with that. You can come up with a self-serving interpretation of just about any body of moral teachings.

But the important thing is that we both agree we have these inalienable rights.
We agree. But, there are those who don't and they truely want you to be their slave. And you have to be able to answer them when they come up with justifications to prevent you from expressing an opinion or having a gun in the house.

Of course, presenting a well-formed rational justification for why the jack-booted thug should stop pulling my books out of the bookcase (and by the way let me get dressed too 'cuz it's cold now that you've broken in the window) is always a difficult project. :-)

"Intrinsic human nature" will not work because it is not true. They will answer that "intrinsic human nature" is unreliable hence humans must be controlled forgetting all the while they are not a bit better than you.

And this is why we have secure bodies of law. And why secure bodies of law are better than bodies of law that can be interpreted away on a whim, etc. etc.

I think that in the long run societies do evolve, especially when the people are exposed to other ways of structuring society (exposure to history, other cultures, other legal & economic systems, etc.) I must admit that the truths are not really "self-evident"; they must be learned. But western-style capitalism & open societies with secure legal systems that recognize individual rights, are slowly but surely spreading around the world and the alternatives are slowly being driven to extinction; and there's a good reason for that.

The foundation flows from the facts of our basic human nature as thinking beings. If this is not so, then we should expect to see some of these things happen in the future: Radical Islamic states will prosper & grow (not just in isolated, walled-off countries like Taliban Afghanistan), Communism will likewise stage a comeback & thrive in many places, and so will any number of fundamentally different systems. I doubt that will happen. (I guess there's a falsifiable prediction for you!)

I'm going to surprise even myself and agree with you on this point. -me-
I watched my first child in the process of "discovering" herself in the first few weeks after she was born. I will just say it was amazing to see her find her hands and arms and figure out their uses.

Also, I did some volunteer teaching at my daughters' grade school from 3rd to 5th grades (brought in my telescope and we looked at sunspots and discussed the solar cycle, etc.). I was very impressed not only with their curiosity, but the insight involved in their questions.

Yes children have great perspicacity. That is why aside from the question of whether ID or evolution is correct or not, the attitude of the board is absolutely wrong. Thinking should always be encouraged, it should never be put down.

No.

Quite true, ID does help in making scientific discoveries.

It appears that not all here would agree - ha ha. But that is the essence of a good debate - is it not?

While I'm not a biologist, molecular or otherwise, the more I learn, the more compelling I find ID to be. I guess you may need to take more of an engineering approach rather than a traditional research biologist approach, but I haven't heard anything here that tells me that this doesn't work. Even those with clearly vested interests in an evolutionary approach make disparaging remarks, but haven't said why it doesn't work.

How can science discover order in biology and every other scientific field if nature is the result of random events?

Easily. Start here and iterate the bibliography operator. William Feller's books may be of assistance.

Thank you so much for the heads up to your ever engaging posts!

With regard to the speculation about the age of the pyramids and which came first, I hasten to note that several Geologists have dated the Sphinx prior to the date given by Egyptologists. I'm not suggesting they were built by aliens, but that there may have been an earlier civilization or some event that caused the appearance of great age.

The Sphinx

Mainstream Egyptologists reacted with total disbelief when it was proposed that the famous Sphinx was much older than the 4th Dynasty [2500 BC] …

This tentative estimate [7000 to 5000 BC] is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago…

IMHO, anomalies such as these should be taken as intellectual challenges to the science community and not rejected because they don’t fit current theory!