Posted on 06/21/2007 4:54:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
21 June 2007
Zuck is out of luck, marsupial findings vindicate Behe, Denton, Hoyle
scordova
I attempted mathematics….but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra….I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.
Charles Darwin, writing of his ineptitude and dislike of math
The inability of Darwin and his followers to make the math of their ideas work continues to haunt them. Another mathematical problem for Darwinism comes in the form of the failing molecular clock hypothesis, a statistical theory of molecular evolution. The hypothesis was the brainchild of arch-Darwinist Schlemiel Zuckerkandl (Zuck for short).
It’s gratifying that a hypothesis which Zuck received so much recognition for 45 years ago is now being bludgeoned to death by empirical data, much to the delight of ID proponents. The most recent example of the failure of Zuck’s idea is reported in When did placental and marsupial mammals split?, we read:
“We’re in total discord with the molecular dates,” Wible says. He thinks genetic clocks fail to account for the post-Cretaceous burst of mammalian evolution.
Are palaeontologists missing fossils, or do bursts of evolutionary diversification throw off molecular clocks? You have to take both sides seriously, says Rich Cifelli of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History in Norman.
Zuck is out of luck. Furthermore, First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise:
The study …may also lead to a number of medical breakthroughs…. …. placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off …. That was the first really important surprise about evolution…..
Why is there so much supposed identity in proteins but great divergence in the highly functional non-coding regions? Do the protein coding regions tick at a rate mysteriously out of sync with the non-coding regions? The molecular clock hypothesis is devastated by this fact, hence the great surprise by the scientists (who were blinded by Darwinism).
In contrast, Michael Denton and Michael Behe successfully anticipated the scientific developments which we see today (much to the embarrassment of Darwinists). Behe in fact published a peer-reviewed article critical of the molecular clock hypothesis almost 17 years ago in Trends in Biochemical Science! [See: Histone deletion mutants challenge the molecular clock hypothesis.] Behe built on the work of Denton in 1985. [See Molecular Clocks: Michael Denton continues to be vindicated.]
Yet another person vindicated by recent scientific developments is Fred Hoyle, who like Denton and Behe, was critical of the molecular clock hypothesis and its accompanying thoeries of protein phylogeny.
In a book highly critical of Darwinism, Mathematics of Evolution, Hoyle wrote:
Besides which, there are three further objections, one a reductio ad absurdum, another a flaw of logic, and the third a disproof by positive fact, that rule protein phylogenies so far out of court that one must wonder at the state of confusion which led to them ever being considered at all.
pp130-131
About this time last year, I also mentioned the potential importance the marsupial and placental convergence and a great opportunity for ID proponents to achieve fame and glory. [See: Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution?]. Little did I know the marsupial and placental convergence would also be another boon for ID theorists with respect to the failure of the molecular clock hypothesis, the importance of junk DNA, and the fact ID is more consistent with potential future medical breakthroughs.
[NOTES] 1. These recent developments are in addition to the egg on Ken Miller’s face and laurels for Michael Behe. [See: Ken Miller may face more embarrassing facts, Behe’s DBB vindicated]
2.I especially like the observation by Hoyle that for one to swallow Darwinism, one must need a certain amount of mental illness:
So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers [in Darwinism] became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens.
3. It’s debatable whether the molecular clock hypothesis is Darwinian since it’s principle advocates are neutral theorists. On the other hand Darwinists have often appealed to the hypothesis as if it were their own while concurrently slamming the neutralists. Like so many issues the relationship of the molecular clock hypothesis to Darwinism is obfuscated into oblivion. But since Darwinists have used the molecular clock hypothesis agains ID proponents, it’s fitting it’s refutation is associated with a refutation of the Darwinists.
4. Zuck wrote anti anti-ID screed which you can find by followingin linkshere. It appears he’s receiving a bit of comeuppance with the recent developments in science.
ping
Uncommon Descent holds that...Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
Hmmmm. Sure sounds like religion to me. They just had to package it differently after the US Supreme Court tossed creation "science" right out of the schools.
The whole scam is laid out in the Wedge Strategy.
I’m all for the Wedge Strategy. And I’ll take Creation/ID science over the Church of Darwin’s worship of the pagan natural selection god any day.
PS Should I interpret your lame response to mean that you still can’t answer Dr. Pitman’s problems with Carbon 14 and Tree Ring Dating???
No. I was just looking at that website these last few minutes.
But you know, I am a scientist-type. I like to research my subjects well, and to avoid the types of mistakes Dr. Pitman has made.
I will be sure to let you know when I have researched a particular point well enough to post on it. The latest point I am researching requires a particular journal article, and that journal is at the office.
What is a scientist-type? Are you a scientist or not?
On a good day, yes.
A scientist is defined by adherence to the scientific method.
A lot of what passes for science is actually bottle washing and button sorting. Or mundane writing projects.
But on a good day, I get to lock the office door for a few minutes and actually do science. That makes all of the rest worthwhile!
OK, so you’re not a working scientist. Do you at least have PhD in any of the scientific disciplines? If so, which one(s)?
Yes, a Ph.D. in archaeology/physical anthropology. And if you think that can't be scientific you should try it sometime.
Too bad, given your training, you would be a wonderful addition to the ever growing number of scientists who are devoting themselves to detecting DESIGN.
The concept of 'junk' DNA was a journalistic invention, scientists have understood that non-coding regions are important for control for a long time. They are also aware that there is indeed some non-coding, non-conserved sequences which when removed during experiments do not affect the organism. The puffer fish " Fugu rubripes" has an extremely clean genome with very little non-conserved DNA within a genome of a bare 350 million base pairs. So little extraneous DNA makes it easier to see how coding and non-coding sequences interact. It also lets us see just how much DNA is really non-functional remnants from the past.
As usual, Sal, Davy and the rest at UD are making a mountain out of a molehill - grasping at straws if you will.
Nothing like creating a strawman to attack when you have ineffective weapons I guess.
Certainly easier than doing science! That's hard!
However, (and you knew there was going to be one didn't you?) the scientists at T.O., including a Neontologist, a Paleontologist, several Biologists (including a molecular biologist I do believe), an Astronomer, a Physicist and a number of others have torn Sean's ideas about biology and evolution apart. If his record holds, then I suspect his ideas on Carbon dating are equally erroneous, but I will leave that to CM as he is the expert. Who knows, maybe Sean knows what he is talking about. (But I doubt it)
I also question Sean's grasp of probability as I have argued with him about it a couple of times at t.o..
So you keep telling me.
I hear doing math is hard too.
Finished that bottle of Merlot yet?
“..the ever growing number of scientists who are devoting themselves to detecting DESIGN.” ~ GGG
Speaking of recognizing design, you may find this exchange to be of interest:
“...design must be fundamentally gratuitous to our existence in order for us to be able to recognize it as design. OTOH, when you accept the prior knowledge of the designer (from the life of Christ, etc.), then you can infer intelligence in the originator of the universe. ..” ~ Phil M.
I agree with your position will offer these excerpts to expand on what you wrote:
“...I say, what would life be without the effulgent beauty of being? And yet, the overflowing presence of this beauty is a mystery that can never be explained on any materialistic basis. ..
Not only is there no reason for the universe to be so beautiful, there is no reason why a species should suddenly pop out of a recently dead universe and have the ability to apprehend the beauty that courses through its every artery and capillary — or every branch, stem and itsy bitsy green leafy lovely.
Why? And not only is this species able to appreciate beauty, but it is driven to create beauty in all its forms — visual, auditory, tactile, linguistic, mathematical, scientific. Why is that? Why this appetite for beauty? It seems so unnecessary. Why are women so much more excruciatingly beautiful than they need to be to get the Darwinian job done? Ouch! Why beauty to the point of pain?
...I posed the non-obvious question — at least it wasn’t obvious to me .. — of whether the beauty that surrounds and abides in us is discovered or just projected.
In other words, the universe has been in existence for what, 14 billion “years,” right? During its first 10 billion years there was no life and therefore no consciousness — or so they say, as little sense as that makes. Biological life has only existed for 3.85 billion years, and human consciousness in any meaningful sense only emerged 40,000 years ago next Tuesday.
So if we truly believe that this was a dead and unconscious universe prior to 4 billion years ago, we can’t really say that it had any qualities at all, let alone something as complex as beauty. After all, beauty — along with every other quality — is a perception of a nervous system. Therefore, it is very difficult to say which is weirder: that a dead and unconscious universe suddenly produced a creature with an ability to apprehend, and a drive to create, beauty; or, alternatively, that the beauty was already there, just waiting to be unpacked and appreciated. And if the latter, I again ask: how and why?
For beauty is always a function of wholeness. That is, the beauty of a beautiful object inheres in its wholeness, harmony and radiance. A work of art cannot be reduced to its parts without losing sight of the artistic vision that organizes the parts and reveals their beauty. Thus, we would have to affirm that wholeness is a prior condition of beauty. But... assuming the cosmos is full of beauty — which it is — is the wholeness already there, or is it only in us? Are these “beautiful wholes” a function of our nervous system, or does the universe just effortlessly crank them out?
It’s not just the material beauty of the earth and heavens; how about all the incredibly beautiful animals? It’s easy to understand how one reptile will be “attracted” to another for the purposes of reproduction ...
But animals of one species do not find those of another species beautiful or attractive, unless they are very, very confused. Rather, they are generally either indifferent to them or frightened of them. They certainly don’t find them beautiful. .. No deer thinks to itself, “wow, what a majestic mane on that lion!,” or “those beady little eyes ...are kind of a turn-off.” No. For animals, it’s either 1) have sex with it, 2) eat it, 4) ignore it, or 4) run away from it.
But in the case of humans, we find our fellow animals to be beautiful. We even collect them and put them in zoos so that we can admire them. Again I ask: are these animals actually beautiful? Or is it just a trick of our nervous system?
If the former, why were these animals beautiful with no self-conscious being to appreciate them until 40,000 years ago? And if the latter, what possible evolutionary reason is there for humans to be hung up on the beauty of other animals for reasons totally unrelated to our reproductive fitness?
It’s not just the obvious things, like sunsets, mountains, oceans and thunderstorms that are beautiful to us. How about a long and happy marriage. Why is that a beautiful thing, while divorce is felt to be ugly (not to cast moral aspersions or deny that it is sometimes necessary)? Marriage is a kind of “frame” that serves a similar function as the frame around a painting — after all, without a frame to define it and set it apart, you can’t have a work of art.
Balthasar writes that marriage is “a kind of bracket that both transcends and contains all an individual’s cravings to ‘break out’ of its bonds and to assert himself. Marriage is that indissoluble reality which confronts with an iron hand all existence’s tendencies to disintegrate, and compels the faltering person to grow, beyond himself, into real love by modeling his life on the form enjoined. When they make their promises, the spouses are not relying on themselves — the shifting songs of their own freedom — but rather on the form that chooses them because they have chosen it, the form to which they have committed themselves in their act as persons.... “
Spouses “entrust themselves foremost to a form with which they can wholly identify themselves even in the deepest aspects of their personality because this form extends through all the levels of life — from its biological roots up to the very heights of grace and of life in the holy spirit.” Paradoxically, freedom “is discovered within the form itself, and the life of a married person can henceforth be understood only in terms of this interior mystery, which mystery is no longer accessible from the sphere of the general.”
“...both Truth and Beauty — and the freedom to discover them — are a function of wholeness.
Indeed, wholeness is the cosmic prerequisite of the possibility of truth or beauty. And as a matter of fact... it is also a precondition of Darwinian evolution. That is to say, natural selection rests on the assumption that there exist prior “wholes” — whole organisms — for it to operate on. There is no materialistic philosophy that can account for wholeness, or true unity in diversity.
Therefore...the point of this post: love, truth, beauty, and freedom are not effects of existence. Rather, they are causes of existence. Thus, to say, for example, “God is Love,” is not a mythological or speculative statement. Rather, it is a scientific statement. No, it is beyond that — it is a metaphysical certitude upon which the foundation of science rests....”
.... parts cannot exist in the absence of the whole — nor time in the absence of eternity, the many in the absence of the One, or beauty without a Creator.
Or, in the words of Rabbi Kushner, “the end is seeing for even one moment that the apparent multiplicity is in reality a unity.”
But a dynamic unity in diversity in which the one is a necessary condition of the other — and whence the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time (Eliot).
Full commentary here: http://tinyurl.com/2cel7q
More: “...In the scientistic flight from the center to the periphery, one becomes lost in details which cannot be integrated in a holistic way. This “downward pull” puts an end to ideational life, as the resultant fragmentation leads to an obsession with parts, and with it, an inability to intuit the whole. Hyper-specialization leads to a kind of cognitive deformity, as the world shrinks in proportion to our quantification of it. As a pathetic compensation, modern man is puffed up with the vanity of being able to describe some minute portion of the world, but this is merely postmodern provincialism of the most naive sort. In the end, the separation of knowledge from religion is the separation of facts and knowledge from the metaphysics that explains them and gives them meaning. ..” Continue: http://tinyurl.com/24buzh
bttt
Not a working scientist?
Gee, CMan, I guess you'll have to show him the dirt under your fingernails. (Or your extensive shovel collection - both your work and FR shovels)
Intelligent design is supposed to be science, not religion.
At least that's what we are being told.
Did you just blow your cover?
Gee, CMan, I guess you'll have to show him the dirt under your fingernails. (Or your extensive shovel collection - both your work and FR shovels)
Why, the dirt under my fingernails is so old...
(...fill in your own Henny Youngman joke here _________________ )
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.