Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[js1138]

I disagree, my guess is that someday this will be a high school science fair project. IMO, the fact that the number of routes is so huge means that once a certain chemical complexity is reached, life of a sort will "condense out". This is very roughly Kauffman's scenario.

I agree, but I also think this means we will never know the exact route that led to life on earth. I suspect this is what Yockey means.

[VadeRetro]

Got a recent thread with a Saturn-involved creation myth?

Jeepers, RM! Give the guy time!

He's got psychic parrots (Rupert Sheldrake), the Electric Universe, Velikovsky, Native American dinosaur paintings, Halton Arp, Robert Bass, and the LENT-1 element transmuter to go yet. Gotta be discreet when you're a sneakback, ya know!

[Virginia-American]

I agree, but I also think this means we will never know the exact route that led to life on earth. I suspect this is what Yockey means.

OK, I agree with that. My guess is that there will be a spectrum of possible routes to the initial proto-life, and once it's established you can no longer see the earlier steps (beasically because they've been eaten).

[dread78645]

Not Uranas but the moons of Saturn

[VadeRetro]

Iapetus was probably more habitable when Saturn was hovering over the North Pole, reducing gravity for the big dinosaurs.

[PatrickHenry]

Face on Uranus.

[VadeRetro]

Don't make it personal!!!

[VadeRetro]

Seriously, I don't even have a tattoo.

[js1138]

Reading the review of Yockey's book I encountered a concept that I hadn't heard before. Living things only decode the genome; they never encode anything.

Now that sounds rather bizarre and potentential mystical when you first encounter it. It look like a ripe plum for the ID crowd. Or possibly a confirmation of the algorithm at inception crowd.

But when you stop to think about it, that's what selection does. The genetic code varies for a number of reason with every instance of reproduction. Mutations, sexual blending, and so forth. Fatal mutations never get to conception, and selection weeds out the less competetive variants.

Over time variation and selection do the encoding.

Now we have a lot of folks on these thread who argue that this process can't add information, but Yockey, the evolution critic approved expert on information theory, says yes it can. And he further says that recent research puts this beyond doubt.

[dread78645]

Iapetus was probably more habitable when Saturn was hovering over the North Pole, reducing gravity for the big dinosaurs.

The suck-up theory of gravity.

[Virginia-American]

I'm gonna have to read his book. The more I see here and other places, the more interesting it sounds.

One book I have read that's quite interesting (although not well-written, unfortunately), is Kauffman's The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Using graph theory arguments and data from the immune system, among other things, he concludes that something like 100,000 catalysts can cover all possible reactions. When the prebiotic "soup" or "pizza" reaches a critical complexity, it is inevitable that autocatalytic loops will form and start "evolving". His insight is that life "condenses out" of a much more complex mix. (Roughly speaking; I have to re-read it).

[Alamo-Girl]

Yockey really does have a razor-like sense of humor

He certainly does! He is a delightful read.

[FreedomProtector]

You deserve an award for one of the most interesting and engaging posts ever, a captivating and interesting read.

[Alamo-Girl]

It will be interesting to see what you get from Yockey through a direct, personal contact – because, as betty boop has shown – his remarks in 2005 were like his remarks in 1996.

I find that most people who doubt evolution and naturalism do not understand feedback. they cannot understand a system that is controlled by consequences rather than by antecedents...

Whereas I agree it is a problem, I do not see it as an either/or on consequences and antecedents. My preference would be for all four Aristotlean causes to remain on the table during an investigation.

Your statement that God is alive by any rational definition of life leads to an interesting problem, since you also appear to believe that life only comes from life. Clearly not all life comes from life. The obvious solution to this conundrum -- God is outside time and without a beginning -- is just a loophole manufactured to escape from logic. It is no more compelling than the assumption that physical existence is outside of time, or that God and physical reality are coextensive.

I certainly do not agree that “not all life comes from life” nor do I agree to the implication that God is not alive. Metaphysical naturalists (atheists) along with others who define life as one or more cell are begging the question by excluding non-spatial, non-temporal and non-corporeal existence.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

He was funny - but I suspect he also was serious most of the time.

[Alamo-Girl]

To the extent that Yockey's science is built on information theory and cryptology, these being "noncorporeals," I'd classify him as someone working within the domain of intelligence and "design."

Indeed, it is a strange phenomenon that the mathematicians and physicists who have been invited to the biology table are asking the same questions as the intelligent design fellows. But most of them eschew the label.

That's ok with me, as long as the questions are being asked progress will be made.

Thank you for your insightful post!

[.30Carbine]

Thanks to you both for sharing your insights with me! Mary chose the better thing, the one thing needed, and it will not be taken from her; so speaks Jesus! (Luke 10:42)

[betty boop]

Thank you so very much for your kind words, FreedomProtector!

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome. Hugs!!!