Here is another way to use ID: Nature 458, 305-309 (19 March 2009) Ronald L. Koder1,2,3, J. L. Ross Anderson1,2, Lee A. Solomon1, Konda S. Reddy1, Christopher C. Moser1 & P. Leslie Dutton1 The principles of natural protein engineering are obscured by overlapping functions and complexity accumulated through natural selection and evolution. Completely artificial proteins offer a clean slate on which to define and test these protein engineering principles, while recreating and extending natural functions. Here we introduce this method with the design of an oxygen transport protein, akin to human neuroglobin. Beginning with a simple and unnatural helix-forming sequence with just three different amino acids, we assembled a four-helix bundle, positioned histidines to bis-histidine ligate haems, and exploited helical Read More ›

Reuben Kendall, freshman at UT-Martin, has written a thoughtful view point regarding Evolution vs Intelligent Design. He raises important points on metaphysical presumptions vs data. He raises the question of Academic Freedom which incorporates the foundational unalienable freedoms of speech and religion. May I encourage readers to write editorials and viewpoints raising such issues and standing up for our inalienable rights.
———————————————-
Academic freedom for creation explanation
Reuben Kendall, Issue date: 3/17/09 Section: Viewpoints

As a freshman, I haven’t been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don’t take very long to notice.

In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.

I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections.
But I have learned that if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.
Read More ›

There has been some discussion at UD about computational search algorithms, which is one of my specialties. Just for fun, I’ve included some C source code here (as a .txt file), which is part of a research project. I’ll send a free set of my classical piano albums to the first person who runs the code and publishes the program output in the comments below, along with a correct guess as to what the ultimate purpose of the search algorithm is. Please provide the following information: CPU clock speed and compiler used. EIL members are not eligible.

Charles Murray recently recounted an experience in Europe:    Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase “a life well-lived” did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.   It was fascinating to hear it said to my face, but not surprising. It conformed to both journalistic and scholarly accounts of a spreading European mentality. Let me emphasize “spreading.” I’m not talking about all Read More ›

It was just one of their usual screeds attacking intelligent design sympathizers, non-materialists, and anyone who doubts, generally. Apparently, someone complained, but – although the post mentions me, – I wasn’t the one. Go here for more.

There are some great new posts at Michael Behe’s Amazon blog for Edge of Evolution, and quite recently the fourth in the series Waiting for Two Mutations, went up:

An interesting paper appeared several months ago in an issue of the journal Genetics, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution” (Durrett, R & Schmidt, D. 2008. Genetics 180: 1501-1509). This is the fourth of five posts that discusses it. Cited references will appear in the last post.

Now I’d like to turn to a couple of other points in Durrett and Schmidt’s reply which aren’t mistakes with their model, but which do reflect conceptual errors. As I quote in a previous post, they state in their reply, “This conclusion is simply wrong since it assumes that there is only one individual in the population with the first mutation.” I have shown previously that, despite their assertion, my conclusion is right. But where do they get the idea that “it assumes that there is only one individual in the population with the first mutation”? I wrote no such thing in my letter about “one individual”. Furthermore, I “assumed” nothing. I merely cited empirical results from the literature. The figure of 1 in 10^20 is a citation from the literature on chloroquine resistance of malaria. Unlike their model, it is not a calculation on my part.

Right after this, in their reply Durrett and Schmidt say that the “mistake” I made is a common one, and they go on to illustrate “my” mistake with an example about a lottery winner. Yet their own example shows they are seriously confused about what is going on.

The basic problem, as I noted here, referencing this controversy (oh, wait, there isn’t a controversy, right?):

Well, the real problem is quite simple, actually: Read More ›

On pp. 47-48 of THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, Richard Dawkins gives two runs of his WEASEL program (note that there were typos in both initial seeds — one had 27 characters, the other 29 whereas they should have 28; I’ve corrected that). Here are the two runs using the Courier typeface, which assigns equal width to each character (spaces are represented by asterisks): WDL*MNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P WDLTMNLT*DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO*P MDLDMNLS*ITJISWHRZREZ*MECS*P MELDINLS*IT*ISWPRKE*Z*WECSEL METHINGS*IT*ISWLIKE*B*WECSEL METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*I*WEASEL METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL Y*YVMQKZPFJXWVHGLAWFVCHQXYPY Y*YVMQKSPFTXWSHLIKEFV*HQYSPY YETHINKSPITXISHLIKEFA*WQYSEY METHINKS*IT*ISSLIKE*A*WEFSEY METHINKS*IT*ISBLIKE*A*WEASES METHINKS*IT*ISJLIKE*A*WEASEO METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEP METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL These runs are incomplete. The first, according to Dawkins, required 43 iterations to converge, the second 64 (Dawkins omitted the other iterates to save space). As you can see, by using the Courier font, one can read up from the target sequence METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL, Read More ›

In another thread, poster madsen presented the following challenge:

I’m holding out hope that the next post will concern positive evidence for ID rather than more critiques of Darwin.

In mathematics there is a method of proof called “proof by contradiction.” The logic behind this proof is the following: Establish two possible alternatives. Assume that one of the alternatives is true, and prove it to be logically contradictory. A superb example of proof by contradiction is Euclid’s (circa 300 BC) proof that the number of primes is infinite.

Let’s apply the method of proof by contradiction to the chance-and-necessity versus design debate.
Read More ›

Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious.  The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views.  Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.  At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”  Charles R. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. (1871; reprint, London: John Murray, 1922), 241-42.

While Darwin was still alive his contemporaries took his racism/evolution link and ran with it.  For example, Ernst Haeckl, the great popularizer of Darwin’s theories on the continent wrote: Read More ›

The moderation policy does not apply to you; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves.  DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.