Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Questions college students should ask science professors

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Students who ask science professors certain questions will be the ones who’ll appreciate the weaknesses in various anti-ID or anti-creation theories. Preferably they’ll ask after they’ve gotten an “A” in the class, maybe even after they’ve gotten their diploma. The ideal IDist or creationist student can hopefully score in the 99th percentile on evolutionary tests, but still understand the difficulties with anti-ID theories like Darwinian evolution.

Jonathan Wells had his list of questions that high school students should ask their biology teachers, and there have been some good responses, thus I didn’t think Wells’ list provided pointed enough questions.

So I’m developing a list for college students interested in ID or creation science. Here are some questions off the top of my head which were occasionally inspired even by anti-IDists or anti-creationists:

1. How can functional proteins form without ribosomes or ribosome-like machines?

2. How can natural selection or neutral evolution evolve poly constrained DNA or any poly constrained systems in general?

3. How did the first organism regulate protein expression and cellular development without regulatory elements or developmental mechanisms?

4. How did any vital organ or protein form given the absence of the organ would be fatal? Absence of insulin is fatal in organisms requiring insulin. How did insulin become a vital part of living organisms? If you say it wasn’t essential when it first evolved, then how can you say selection had any role in evolving insulin without just guessing?

5. How did DNA evolve in a proteins-first or RNA first scenario?

6. How did amino acid homochirality evolve since the amino acids in biotic soup experiments are racemic, plus homochiral amino acids spontaneously racemize outside of living systems? How about DNAs and sugars? If the expectation value is 50% left, how do 100% left or right forms emerge in pre-biotic soups, and more importantly how is homochirality maintained long enough for chemical evolution to work?

7. Don’t dead dogs stay dead dogs and doesn’t Humpty Dumpty stay broken?

8. Describe how a partially functioning ribosomes or any partial implementation of the DNA code could operate in a working cell, and how a such cell can operate without such vital parts.

9. Are most laboratory and field observations of evolution reductive rather than constructive of new coordinated functions? For the sake of argument, let extinction can count as reductive evolution. When bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, what proportion of cases involved evolution of a new complex protein?

10. Cite an experiment or field observation where a substantially new protein was evolved in real time or is expected to evolve in real time over the next few generations. Nylonase is the most cited example, but that wasn’t a substantially new protein. But even granting that, how many complex proteins are evolving in the biosphere versus those getting lost forever.

11. What new trait in human populations do you expect to become genetically fixed in all 7 Billion or so people, and how fast do you expect that trait to overtake the population in how many generation? If you can’t identify convincingly one or a few traits, how then can you argue for evolution of so many traits in the past?

12. If a species has a population of 10,000, how can selection act in a particulate manner on 4 giga bases of DNA individually? Wouldn’t such a large genome relative to small population size result in lots of selection interference, hence wouldn’t most molecular evolution be neutral of necessity as Kimura asserted?

13. Do geological layers involving permineralized fossils or other kinds of well-preserved fossils require rapid burial? If the burial process is rapid, does it really take millions of years then to make that particular layer that has fossils? If you find C14 in Cambrian fossils not the result of contamination or lab error, does that mean the fossil had a more recent time of death than 500,000,000 years? Given the half lives of DNA and amino acids or other decay processes of biological organisms, how can we account for preservation of these biotic materials for far longer than indicated by their chemical half-lives?

14. Can geological strata form rapidly? What about the university experiments and field observations that show strata can form rapidly? If they can form rapidly, and if fossil presence demands they form rapidly, doesn’t that suggest they formed rapidly?

15. If redshifts in the Big Bang model are discovered to be possibly caused by other mechanisms than relative motion, wouldn’t that put the Big Bang in doubt? Wouldn’t that also raise questions about stellar distances?

16. What is the farthest astronomical distance that can be determined by parallax or very long base line interferometry, and what fraction is that detection distance relative to the claimed size of the visible universe relative to the Big Bang? How do you account for Super Nova by stars not inside galaxies? If so, doesn’t that mean there is a higher probability of Super Nova in a star outside a galaxy by a factor of hundreds of billions if not more? If so, why should this be?

Feel free to list your ideas or improve the list above.

Remember, the goal is the question will be so powerful, that when the student asks the scientist or other authority figure, and when the scientist is forced to admit the truth, the student will realize the weakness in mainstream claims. I didn’t list vague or ambiguous soft ball questions. The strength of the biology questions is in complex design details, not some 19th century Darwinian view of the simplicity of life. I added a few YEC-friendly questions just for fun. A good scientist ought to welcome and value skepticism and hard questions.

I once gambled a little bit on a weaker question that a creationist biology student should ask her anatomy and physiology professor regarding the evolution of hearts. I basically suggested she ask about how the intermediate plumbing can work if it is not all wired-correctly in the first place. Here for example are the some various reptilian hearts:

how does it evolve from a fish heart?

When that biology junior posed that question, she came back the next week at our ID/Creation meeting beaming. She said, “you’re right, there are no transitionals!” I realized then whatever I said might not be as powerful as what professors are unable to say when asked the right questions!

Feel free to add your questions in the comment section or CEU Questions students should ask professors. I’ll be collecting them at a website for future reference which I can direct students to. Thanks in advance.

Photo credits: Encyclopedia Britannica, Quia.com.

Comments
Sal quoted:
From transcription of DNA
Yes, a little detail you missed in your original response, DNA had to be there too!
But Sal has only quoted a fraction of my text. It continues thus:
From transcription of DNA (or RNA if proteins preceded DNA rather than vice versa) by a ribozyme rather than an enzyme.
That's naughty, Sal. Add to the above sleight of hand that you chopped up and reordered my response without indicating such, and the fact that my response was about the necessity of ribosomes for protein formation from mRNA (so the presence/absence of DNA was no more missed in my answer than a description of mitochondria or even the Taj Mahal) and we're left with yet another example of creationist 'debating' tactics. RoyRoy
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Sal, use your design inference. It’s obvious CandiceC is a bot.
Here we go again arguing about the identity of the designer. My bet is it's some Ukranian guy actually visiting websites that were targeted by a spider. So lets run an experiment and see if the designer shows up. Oh CandiceC, oh CandiceC can you show up and prove the designer exists?scordova
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Sal, use your design inference. It's obvious CandiceC is a bot.JoeCoder
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Not to put you on the spot, but how much of this evidence had you heard about when you scoffed at the claim that the Big Bang was supported by a “mountain of evidence” and accused astronomers of having “mountains of circular reasoning” instead?
All that you cited above including the fact the supposed time dilation in SN could be due to Malmquist bias and other factors. I studied physics and cosmology at the school that a scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of Dark Energy.
As for the Big Bang itself, the mere existence of the CMB is a huge phenomenon, it has a perfect “black body” spectrum proving that the universe was once filled with a hot opaque medium, i.e. it was utterly different from its present state.
How do you know it's everywhere, it could be a local bubble that surrounds us for all we know. The question of insufficient intergalactic shadows suggests MBR ubiquity is in doubt. The arguments over this are still going back and forth. The MBR is embarrassingly smooth, and In general, you look hard enough, you're going to find an anisotropy somewhere! Further the fixes of dark matter and dark energy are dubious to this day and the Galaxies looking mature at high redshifts are suggestive we have no idea of what's what.
Massive surveys have been done of the distribution of galaxies in the universe, galaxies are clustered in filaments and sheets leaving huge galaxy free voids hundreds of millions of light years in diameter. This observed distribution of galaxies (called “baryon acoustic oscillations”) fits the pattern predicted by the Big Bang.
Yes, filaments with dark matter fortuitously sprinkled in the right spots. Plus the voids are nicely positioned to say the fingers of God are pointing at us! That's OK if one is not swearing by the Copernican principle.scordova
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
@64 You ask: "What mountain of evidence?" You claim there is a serious problem with the Big Bang because there is some evidence that time does not slow down (time dilation) for fast moving (high redshift) quasars which, if true, would imply that quasars are not receding from us and therefore the universe is not expanding. The evidence is that those quasars which are at higher z (redshift) do not seem to vary in brightness more slowly than those at lower redshift. Unfortunately, no one knows precisely why quasars vary, quasars are thought be immense black holes which are engulfing large amounts of matter. The infalling matter radiates prodigiously. The problem is that high redshift quasars are billions of years older than low redshift ones and the factors which make quasars fluctuate are unlikely to remain unchanged over billions of years. In particular, the universe was much denser at high redshift which should affect the infall rate. So it is not clear whether or not the effects of time dilation would be counteracted by changes in the rate at which quasars vary. So there is only one line of evidence against the Big Bang and it has problems, while there are multiple solid arguments for the Big Bang. There are 3 independent arguments for time dilation 1) Type Ia supernovae should and do show time dilation (high redshift Type Ia's fade more slowly) see a)The Astrophysical Journal, 626:L11–L14, 2005 June 10 and b) The Astrophysical Journal, 682:724-736, 2008 August 1 Ref [a] is cited in the paper on quasars which you mention (but you didn't give the reference, bad habit that!) The reference is: Monthly Notices Royal Astron. Soc. 405, 1940–1946 (2010). Since the fading time of Type Ia's should be the same regardless of the age of the universe (same natural laws) they are a more definitive test of time dilation due to the expansion of the universe than quasar fluctuations. 2) Another test of the expansion of the universe is the surface brightness test which can be applied to 1) to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation itself or 2) elliptical galaxies. See THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 122:1084-1103, 2001 September. From their abstract: "We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the 'tired light' speculation for a nonexpansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the tired light model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma". 3) And then there are the tests of the prediction that the CMB was hotter at higher z, (i.e. the universe cooled as it expanded, so at higher redshift it was less expanded and therefore hotter.) See Astronomy and Astrophysics. Vol 482, L39-42 (2008). Astronomy and Astrophysics. Feb. 2011 Vol 526, L7. Astronomy and Astrophysics. Mar. 2013 A109 Those are the 3 tests of time dilation as cross check on whether the universe is really expanding. As for the Big Bang itself, the mere existence of the CMB is a huge phenomenon, it has a perfect "black body" spectrum proving that the universe was once filled with a hot opaque medium, i.e. it was utterly different from its present state. And then there are the fine details of the CMB such as the predicted ripples (acoustic peaks), the Plank and WMAP satellites have found 5 of them now. Besides acoustic peaks there are the predicted (and observed) complex patterns in the polarization of the CMB (E modes and B modes). Massive surveys have been done of the distribution of galaxies in the universe, galaxies are clustered in filaments and sheets leaving huge galaxy free voids hundreds of millions of light years in diameter. This observed distribution of galaxies (called "baryon acoustic oscillations") fits the pattern predicted by the Big Bang. In summary, astronomers are testing the Big Bang model in every way it can be tested and have gone to great efforts in advancing in observational technology in order to do so. That is exactly what they should be doing. You complain that Hawkins' quasar evidence is being "ignored." Science is about doing things, so the real problem is that no one knows what to do to follow up Hawkin's results. There is no point in redoing Hawkins' analysis unless you think he got it wrong. Lacking some understanding of how to reconcile Hawkins' results with the evidence for the Big Bang, the best approach is to keep on testing the Big Bang every way it can be tested. And astronomers are doing that. Not to put you on the spot, but how much of this evidence had you heard about when you scoffed at the claim that the Big Bang was supported by a "mountain of evidence" and accused astronomers of having "mountains of circular reasoning" instead?tlawry
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
CandiceC, I hope you're not offended if I ask, but are you some sort of AdBot or guy tasked to post on forums and blogs to advertise essay services? I got this Honey Pot report on your IP:
This IP addresses has been seen by at least one Honey Pot. However, none of its visits have resulted in any bad events yet. It's possible that this IP is just a harmless web spider or Internet user. If you know something about this IP, please leave a comment. Lookup IP In: Domain Tools | SpamHaus | Spamcop | SenderBase | Google Groups | Google Geographic Location Ukraine Spider First Seen approximately 2 months, 1 week ago Spider Last Seen within 2 months, 1 week Spider Sightings 1 visit(s) User-Agents seen with 1 user-agent(s)
Your posts at UD seemed to be well written ads. Here is a list of what you wrote before:
CandiceC amanakova4@gmail.com 217.77.215.214 Submitted on 2014/04/11 at 4:30 am I in general think that students should not be afraid to ask any questions they want to. It is just I have seen so many students being afraid to ask something as they were afraid to look silly in their professor’s eyes, so they were ending up at Essay Online Store or some other helpful website where they could use some help with home assignments. Students should never be afraid to ask questions. Questions college students should ask science professors 71 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2014/03/17 at 3:40 am The very first thing that is so wrong about higher education is that it is so unaffordable for many young people. I am sure we are missing to educated potentially great economists (Economics College Level Papers for Students), educators, scientist who could find the cure for cancer and so on as for. And the only reason is children monetary incapable for the university or the college. It is so not fair. So the entire system needs to be broken in order to fix higher education. It is my personal opinion. What’s wrong with higher ed?: “Science has precisely nothing to tell us about values” 1 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2014/02/28 at 3:02 am I am sure that so many people (possibly all of us) has at least once asked exact same question. But do we know the answer? I guess I can call it a tradition. But this is a tradition with too many responsibilities and consequences. I would not want education to be the same as it is today. Education should not be so closely related to a debt. It has to be related to great achievements, admission essays (order college papers from Essay Online Store), and students’ research projects and so on and so far. So why are you going into debt for higher education? 6 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2014/02/20 at 12:42 am Planning is very important for education. If many people think that it is ok to simply come to college and study. No, they are wrong; they need to plan their personal education system. This way it would be easier for students to succeed, not to miss deadlines on their academic assignments such as students’ research papers in Economics, for example. So yeas, planning is vital here. Thank you for the short post New at The Best Schools I 1 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2014/01/24 at 2:43 am Yes, you are absolutely right that we do not really care as much as we should. But I do not understand why? And, by the way, by “we” I mostly mean the government which shutting lots of funding, well, in some cases, reduces it. The whole system is pretty messed up and yet still we do nothing about it, we just and watch and let bad things continue to happen in the education segment. I mean is that really what we should be doing? Why not finally speak up of the existing problems: low test results scores around the country in writing (look for safe website to purchase paper from), reading, math, science, etc.! New at The Best Schools I 1 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2013/12/23 at 3:15 am Looks like STEM jobs have been very popular lately, but it is not like I can actually understand why. I understand that everyone wants to become certified engineers but we also should remember about other professions. Like, we always lack qualified writers (find professional writers to compose academic level essays), certified teachers and many others. All I am trying to say is that the government should create conditions where students would want to study different subjects as the compensation and the growth possibility is present everywhere, but it is a long path for us to take. New at The Best Schools II 1 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2013/11/24 at 12:36 pm You know, I used to think that writing is not that complicated and there are no special skills are required to actually write a decent essay for example. But I was wrong. This is something that is difficult to do, especially when you have a deadline and you are completely unfamiliar with the topic. So the only solution for me was to use this helpful service. I have found it so much easier to trust professionals with writing my essays all the time from now on! New at The Best Schools I 1 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2013/11/12 at 3:25 am There are so many questions are being raised in such a small post. And unfortunately, there are no positive answers to them. No matter what angle you are looking on education from, there are problems which require to be fixed. I like that you’ve noticed a problem with editing and yet still everyone thinks that we have no problems with good writing at all, but isn’t that the reason why students and other people apply to different writing services to get a qualified writing help in a first place? Still, everybody keep on talking about math, reading and science as if these are the three most important subjects ever. New at The Best Schools I 1 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2013/10/16 at 3:16 am Everybody has a right to believe in whatever he thinks is right for him. But when it comes to schools, well I do not think that this is right. Maybe I am saying this because I am not an atheist just like the majority people are. But think further, what will children write in their essays when they will be sending their applications to colleges? How will such information be accepted by the board of education? But from another side again everyone has a right to think that way as we live in a democratic country! Candice from dissertation writing service at MyEssayService Online An example of why atheist creation stories should not be taught in tax-funded schools 9 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2013/10/07 at 1:37 am Here is the trick: no one wants to go with the lowest price education. We all know that the lower does not necessarily the better. But unfortunately not many have an option to choose. Unless of course they choose to study online, which I think is great. It is cheaper (but I do not know how much cheaper though), you are basically in charge of your classes and home assignments. Besides, it is very convenient to do home work online as you can easily get academic help at MyEssayService as they can write professional essays, term-papers, dissertations and so on. So yes, it is smarter to study online these days. New at The Best Schools 4 View Post CandiceC Submitted on 2013/09/10 at 1:31 am America used to be a country where everyone could easily say what he was thinking about without being punished for that. And the main force were students who were not afraid to show their most outrageous opinion in essays, research papers and sometimes even dissertations (please check MyEssayService for more information). Yes, this time has gone already. It is time to face the truth: it is very difficult to get heard unless there is a big crowd of people who have same opinion and yet still no one can guarantee success. Same thing with students: they are simply being afraid of consequences and I can understand them!
scordova
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
I in general think that students should not be afraid to ask any questions they want to. It is just I have seen so many students being afraid to ask something as they were afraid to look silly in their professor’s eyes, so they were ending up at Essay Online Store or some other helpful website where they could use some help with home assignments. Students should never be afraid to ask questions.CandiceC
April 11, 2014
April
04
Apr
11
11
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
For the geology questions I would also recommend adding how a deluge could have rapidly deposited the layers we observe. The cosmology questions are also very good! Had not seen those before. Evidences of the falsity of general relativity, how no death took place before the Fall, and things like the Shroud of Turin are also proofs I have used to question arrogant Darwinists and to show how many answers they are lacking!TruthCrusader
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Couldn’t you start with a smooth surface, followed by a bump on each side? And then another pair of bumps, and so on?
Then maybe I should put on a list of things worth looking into, I'll remove it from the list of "vetted" IC questions. Maybe what to do is write a thread for each of the separate IC systems and see if ID proponents think it is good enough. The evolution of hearts was one I considered shaky, but I tried it anyway. I think there is no harm in actually getting students to investigate and find out what arguments are good and bad if they are the sort that is fairly convinced ID is true, but just want to fish for the best arguments. They might find some gems. I surely can't pull the project off on my own!scordova
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
mechanical gear evolution
Like in the insect? This seems like a particularly weak point. Couldn't you start with a smooth surface, followed by a bump on each side? And then another pair of bumps, and so on? I'm sure it's much more complex than that at the molecular level, but that can't be articulated in a quick argument, nor do I expect anyone has even studied it.JoeCoder
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
From Neil Degras Cosmos Tyson himself:
“question everything, especially those things that everyone else took for granted.”
scordova
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
In light of the very good feedback and criticisms, I've tentatively decided to make at least 5 lists: 1. core list of basic questions that should be above reproach, that are educational, and actually questions that are stated in professional literature, and which scientists do not have good answer for. For example, geneticist George Church himself suggested IDists raise the issue of the ribosome, so I did not have to make that one up. Questions of that variety will make the core list. 2. a list of raw quotations from where the core list came from. It will at least show the references that helped make the core list. The reason I separate this out is that it won't be quite so streamlined, but it shows evidence of where the questions came from professional literature. 3. list of IC and specific questions that are credible but aren't supported by the mainstream. Examples: A. mechanical gear evolution B. Trochlea evolution C. heart evolution They are legitimate questions, but I haven't necessarily seen something like a paper in biocomplexity that raises the issue. Maybe this highlights a need to find a way to vet such ideas. For example there are some kinds of mimicry that are powereful, but I'm not totally convinced it can't arise from selection. I could list the IC examples from Darwin's Black Box. That's a good list, and it has had lots of public peer review. I think these sorts of questions would be especially beneficial to biology students in their particular disciplines. A student of physiology and anatomy might appreciate a different variety of questions than a student of cellular or molecular biology. I want to see what sort of questions will be particularly helpful in seeing the failure of certain mainstream claims. One reason I particularly liked the heart evolution question is it takes precedence over things like Tiktaalik. It makes the student think hard about soft tissue evolution even in principle, and why just finding fossils that like Tiktaalik might not even in principle prove gradual evolution of important systems. 4. Theoretical and empirical problems with Darwinian evolution 5. The FRINGE topics lists. I wouldn't say these are questions that students will necessarily ask. They explore fringe topics for those interested. They are good topics, the student will learn by even understanding the question, but it doesn't have quite the mainstream support of the core questions. It will take time to develop quality lists and they will probably undergo revision. For myself, I was one good enough terms with some professors I was able to ask non-threatening fringe questions. I once asked Dr. Trefil about variable speed of light, and he said he studied the topic himself and the idea had fallen out of favor. I was very grateful for that because I became properly more skeptical of the whole thing. I also asked two professors (of classical mechanics) about Eric Laithwaite's (a respected engineer who pioneered magnetic levitation for trains) claims about gyroscopy. I learned something and have since rejected Laithwaite's claims. Finally, over time I hope the students themselves will provide feedback as to which questions were good and bad and help the list get periodically amended.scordova
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Dr JDD @ 26, @ 39, @ 55 Interesting comments. Thank you.Dionisio
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Sal@61, If Cepheids are a thorn in your side, how do you deal them?
Study them, and be willing to admit I'm wrong. Hence, I might revise the above list and withdraw a particular question. That's why I posted this thread to solicit feedback. I don't want to pass on questions that are too far out on the fringe. I'm thinking the Cepheid evidence is pretty good at this stage. Even in the remote chance we're misinterpreting the Cepheids, there isn't enough evidence to overturn the mainstream view. By way of contrast, I don't think that is the case for Quasars. The absence of time-dilation to redshift in quasars discovered by Mike Hawkins at the Royal Observatory should have given huge pause to the Big Bang paradigm. So far it has been ignored.
Quasars, the massive, enigmatic and energetic centers of distant galaxies, have long fascinated us with their bizarre behaviors. Why do they pump out so much energy? Why do they produce the radiation that they do? How did they affect the early universe? A recent publication, however, finds the a lack of bizarre activity of quasars that is, well, bizarre. Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh searched for, and did not find evidence for, so-called time dilation in distant quasars. Time dilation is a counter-intuitive, yet actual, feature of Einstein's special relativity in which time slows down for an object that is in motion relative to another. Since the universe is expanding — and the distant quasars are racing away from us — a clock placed in one of these distant galaxies should be running more slowly than a clock we have on Earth. Therefore, the effects of time dilation for distant objects can be measured if we can observe the ticking clock in the distant galaxy. HowStuffWorks: Does time change speed? Time dilation explained. Hawkins took advantage of the fact that quasars blink. This blinking, or variability, can be viewed as the "ticking clock." He used data from quasar monitoring programs stored on photographic plates to measure the timescale of the blinking. Looking at the timescales for two groups of quasars, one distant and the other even farther away, there was no measurable difference. That meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were the same. This could mean several things. could be a sign that the universe is not expanding., it could indicate that quasars are not really what we think they are. However, for either of these scenarios to be true, you'd have to explain away or disprove mountains of evidence in favor of these models.
What mountains of evidence? Mountains of circular reasoning that seems to concoct ad hoc explanations for every inconvenient observation. To quote Larry Moran, maybe, "I don't know" is a good answer at this stage.scordova
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Question: 1a. Does life appear to be a product of design? (DNA coding, cellular machinery, origin, etc.) 1b. If life appears to be designed, on what scientific basis do we I. exclude the possibility of design, and ii. exclude research into detecting whether or not the seemingly designed features are actually designed features via forensic or other method?johnp
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Sal@61, If Cepheids are a thorn in your side, how do you deal them?Henry Crun
April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
tlawry, Great response and criticism! Yes, cepheids are a thorn in my side. :-) Welcome to UD. Salscordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
AFAIK the farthest object with a purely trigonometric parallax is a star forming cluster near the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 7.9 kpc (25,800 ly) (see The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 705, Issue 2, pp. 1548-1553 (2009). If you relax slightly the requirement of purely trigonometric parallax you can get a geometric parallax by doing VLBI on water maser clouds orbiting black holes in the centers of galaxies. The shifts in the maser frequencies give the orbital speeds, comparing speeds to the change in position on the sky gives the distance. Galaxy NGC4268 is at 7.2 +- 0.3 Mpc (23.5 million ly, NATURE |VOL 400 | 5 AUGUST 1999 p. 539), Galaxy UGC 3789 is at 49.9 +- 7 Mpc (162.7 million ly see http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7292v2), and Galaxy NGC 6264 is at 144 +- 19 Mpc (470 million ly http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7273v2) So you can get direct geometric distance measurements out to half a billion ly. These distances can be cross checked against the standard distance measurements such as Cepheid variables. The HST found 281 Cepheid variables in NGC4268 giving yet another calibration of the Cepheid distance scale. (The Astrophysical Journal, 652:1133Y1149, 2006 December 1) Another massive calibration of standard techniques will come from the Gaia satellite which was launched last year and will measure the distances of a billion stars in our galaxy to high accuracy.tlawry
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
scordova @ 57
In fact Dr. Hunter’s article is the first google hit I got regarding “histone evolution” Lol!
That's ironically funny! :) Does that mean that the Darwinian propaganda machine is losing momentum? Or is it that undeniable facts and evidences are gradually popping up everywhere, as more data keeps coming out of research?Dionisio
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
scordova @ 46 That's a good idea. Thank you. Yes, agree, graphical tools usually work better than many words, specially to explain complex concepts like these, which include heavy duty engineering design that exceeds any system created by humans so far.Dionisio
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Read specifically about the modifications of histone and the “histone code” and how incredibly complex it is (mono-, di- and tri-methylation of lysine exquisitely distinguished by regulatory proteins). It is truly astounding. It is also odd that archaea have histones but bacteria do not, but all eukaryotes do (and strongly conserved).
Ok, suggested question:
How did histones and histone codes evolve? Also how did hitstone evolve in archaea and eukaryotes but not in bacteria?
Cornelius Hunter has a really interesting take. He argues selection on histones is actually weak, which to implies (to me anyway) selection can't play much of a role in histone conservation. How evolutionists stole histones In fact Dr. Hunter's article is the first google hit I got regarding "histone evolution" Lol!scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Sal you turned my evidence of design into another criticism of evolution! Which is what I thought we were trying to avoid since we already had too many :P A few points: 1. This argument (or at least my familiarity with it) is not ready for prime time. I need to track down and verify primary sources and quantify each point. 2. I would stress that redundant genes are not paralogs but operate in different ways. Otherwise it can just be claimed they all arose through duplication, which seems reasonable enough. 3. Will most professors be familiar with what "scale-free" means?JoeCoder
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
JoeCoder, It's a tough one because the theory of evolution can accommodate any finding therefore it is not something that can be challenged or analysed. Therefore you have to resort to showing the impossibilities or rather extreme unlikelihood of it explaining life as we know it. What do I mean by the theroy of evolution can accommodate any finding? Example (10yrs ago): All this extra non-coding DNA that does not encode for genes has no function - it is the by product of evolution, left over, and strong evidence that we are the product of mere evolution from a common ancestor. (After findings of "junk" DNA having function): Evolution is incredibly efficient process and has selected the DNA it needs for life to function optimally over many millions of years. Example #2 (Vestigal organs/structures): These are left-over structures that were only useful in a previous ancestoral form, and are useless structures/organs now, a by-product of evolution providing proof that no designer would be so poor as to have these functionless parts present. (On finding function for vestigal organs/structures): Evolution has allowed for the introduction of organs that are highly useful for optimal growth, survival and reproduction. It is a remarkably efficient process that is not wasteful and very directional. This rationale is the approach to any and all findings that show more complexity than once thought, or give explanation for something that was previously attributed to left-over or a by-product of evolution. Therefore how can you actually provide someone of this mindset with any real evidence for design, when they will take everything with the premise that it occurred from evolution (as evolution is in fact, an axiom). You have little option but to highlight the illogical nature of the arguments, and how following it through to its ultimate completion makes little sense in terms of natural laws we know, observations we make, and probabilities of likelihood. Not long ago, I read an article about duons. The finding recently that there may be a second layer to the DNA triplet codons, in gene regulation. The article was pitched "the code has evolved to also include this additional information..." Scroll down to the comments and of course you get a post straight away from someone saying, "see, more proof of evolution against those dumb creationists. They know nothing!" Ironically, I fail to see how a "duon code" is in anyway supportive of the evolutionary theory. If anything, it is the opposite. It increases the complexity of DNA, thus decreasing the probability of arisal from chance on a simplistic view, but then it also raises questions about what "redundant" mutations are truly redundant? When people see a change in the codon that still encodes for the same amino acid, it is apparently redundant. But if the duon code is true, that could imply that this change has an effect on the regulation of the gene, therefore it is not redundant! So how in any intellectual sense is that a proof or evidence of evolution?! Its not, but evolution is tagged on to any novel finding about life as it is viewed as a fundamental cornerstone of understanding every bit of biology around us. Therefore, if you have your cornerstone of evolution on which Biological sciences are considered to be built, anything that tries to chip away or remove that cornerstone in their mind is threatening the whole of science - it will all come tumbling down. So of course they will personally attack, of course they will be dismissive and largely not engage, of course they won't see it from your view, and of course they will portray you falsely and also portray it as "non-science". Add into this mix the fact that most naturalist evolutionists do not recognise or understand that most IDers accept a significant level of evolution (natural selection without macro-evolution, which is purely an extrapolation of natural selection and nothing more) Your hope with the ID movement cannot be to sway those with a firm belief in naturalistic evolution to acceptance of ID, as it is easier to persuade a life-long Buddhist towards atheism, or a life-long Muslim to Judaism. Your battle is informing those who are undecided, who are unaware, who sit on the fence, who get the media side pushed by the Dawkins and the like of the world with their incredible bias and dismissive belittling nature, and inform them that actually, this is not a given fact. It should not be an axiom; that there are equally viable (we could argue more viable) alternatives and ID is not pseudoscience or religious superlative. The more you can spread the questions, highlight the problems, encourage questioning, reasoning and frankly REAL science, the more understanding of the problem there will be and we might start to see a shift towards the middle ground. The public's perception needs to be changed to accurately reflect both sides of the argument, not one side, and you will not do this by trying to only engage with dismissive and belittling attitudes. But what does this mean for us? It is the classic "lead by example." There is nothing wrong with accepting good evolutionary arguments, with saying "I see your point and it supports your theory." I think people who are not in the religion of naturalistic evolution and open to discussion/engagement or unaware of the problems with evolution will be more engaging, more willing to accept and listen to your arguments if you are someone who can try to not show extreme bias by instantly rejecting anything the other side says. That is how staunch naturalistic evolutionists react. Instant rejection. Cannot possibly agree with any argument an IDer makes. IDers cannot be like that - they have to show vigour in seeking a true scientific approach of examining the evidence and making conclusions on this - even if the evidence does not always seem to favour them. JDDr JDD
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
JoeCoder, Thanks! In light of what you said, suggested question:
How can genetic redundancy evolve and be maintained since in principle it will be mostly invisible to selection? The random walks of neutral evolution cannot serve as explanation either since random walks are not expected to make functional genes. Selection doesn't plausibly act on individual nodes of a scale-free, redundant genetic system. From an evolutionary standpoint, genes with overlapping functions implies minimal, if any, selective pressures acting on these genes. One therefore expects that the genes participating in such buffering of mutations will be subject to severe mutational drift diverging their functions and/or expression patterns with considerably high rates. For paralogous genes this has been demonstrated.
scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Sal, you should really read Peter Borger's paper on Genetic Redundancy in the Journal of Creation if you haven't already. Borger notes that just like in our own most critical designs, genetic systems are highly redundant with fallbacks and failsafes ready for when primary systems fails. These systems are never used unless the primary systems fail and therefore can't be maintained by selection and should deteriorate through genetic drift. Moreso they don't show similarity to the primary systems so they couldn't have been created through duplications. Of course what evolution can't maintain it certainly can't create. Dennis Noble had similar points in his talk that got passed around several months ago. At 16:27:
Simply by knocking genes out we don't necessarily reveal function, because the network may buffer what is happening. So you may need to do two knockouts or even three before you finally get through to the phenotype. ... If one network doesn't succeed in producing a component necessary to the functioning of the cell and the organism, then another network is used instead. So most knockouts and mutations are buffered by the network.
And at 19:40:
Is this an unusual result, ... or is it general? This study went through all 6000 genes in the organism yeast. knocking them out one by one. 80% of the knockouts were silent. So this physiological process of buffering against gene change is general. It's usual in fact. Now that doesn't mean to say that these proteins that are made as a consequence of gene templates for them don't have a function. Of course they do. If you stress the organism you can reveal the function. .. If the organism can't make product X by mechanism A, it makes it by mechanism B.
The well known (within my industry at least) mechanical engineer turned programmer Walter Bright talks about how critical it is to have redundant but non-homologous components in reliable systems:
All I know in detail is the 757 system, which uses triply-redundant hydraulic systems. Any computer control of the flight control systems (such as the autopilot) can be quickly locked out by the pilot who then reverts to manual control. The computer control systems were dual, meaning two independent computer boards. The boards were designed independently, had different CPU architectures on board, were programmed in different languages, were developed by different teams, the algorithms used were different, and a third group would check that there was no inadvertent similarity. An electronic comparator compared the results of the boards, and if they differed, automatically locked out both and alerted the pilot. And oh yea, there were dual comparators, and either one could lock them out. This was pretty much standard practice at the time. Note the complete lack of "we can write software that won't fail!" nonsense. This attitude permeates everything in airframe design, which is why air travel is so incredibly safe despite its inherent danger.
So I think this is a pattern that both has eerie similarty to our own designs, while also being the opposite of what Darwinian evolution should produce. However, it's something I hope to study more before presenting it as an argument.JoeCoder
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Here is Moran's response to the Humpty Dumpty question: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/04/jonathan-wells-proves-that-life-must.html
This YouTube video is described as "The most ignorant 82 seconds you'll ever see." I don't know about that. I been around IDiots for quite a long time. It may not be the "most ignorant" but it's surely in the top ten. Remember, this is the best they've got. Really. Trust me on this.
What did Wells say that brought about Dr. Moran's response?
“Even if Miller’s experiment were valid, you’re still light years away from making life. It comes down to this: no matter how many molecules you can produce with early Earth conditions, plausible conditions, you’re still nowhere near producing a living cell. And here’s how I know: if I take a sterile test tube and I put in a little bit of fluid, with just the right salts, just the right balance of acidity and alkalinity, just the right temperature, the perfect solution for a living cell, and I put in it one living cell. This cell is alive. It has everything it needs for life. Now I take a sterile needle and I poke that cell, and all its stuff leaks out into this test tube. You have in this nice little test tube all the molecules you need for a living cell. Not just the pieces of the molecules but the molecules themselves, and (still) you cannot make a living cell out of them. You can’t put Humpty Dumpy back together again. So what makes you think that a few amino acids in the ocean are going to give you a living cell? It’s totally unrealistic.”
I'm happy to pass Dr. Moran's response to students who asked the Humpty Dumpty question.scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Sam, If you have links to videos you would prefer that students watch instead of POL or Unlokcing to learn the workings of the cell, feel free to post links. I'll be glad to pass them on. When I saw a crash course in biology about the translation process, the video wasn't materially different than POL or Unlocking. Feel free to post links to videos you prefer for teaching cellular process like: 1. translation 2. signaling 3. garbage disposal etc.scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
JoeCoder, It's tough doing this because I have to swallow my pride constantly and be willing to say an idea I put forward is a bad one. If some of the questions are bad, I have to be willing to revise them or withdraw them. I can't in good conscience give junk to students just to save face in an internet debate. Art had some good criticisms, for example. I'm glad science professors like Larry and Art are participating. We'll get to see how they would answer these questions for such hypothetical students. Some of the questions I obviously made up on my own, others I got from literature of professional scientists asking exactly those same questions and having no answers.
I think one improvement we could make is to focus more on patterns in biology that match what’s expected under design, but are the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts or could do.
This is why I posted this thread. I need other ideas for other people. That Trochlea example was pretty good! That reminded me of the mechanical gear. Few are as openly honest about origins problems as AG Cairns-Smith, but a lot of this follows his own writing on the subject. I hope the science professors on the net find errors in what I wrote as that will help me clean up my question list. I thank them in advance for helping deliver good science to college students. The questions posed are questions, not assertions. Students will learn by pondering the questions. I don't see why, fundamentally speaking, these list of questions should be viewed as bad science. I would hope professional scientists would welcome skepticism and good questions which force them to say, "I don't know." :-)scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Larry Moran blogged about this post. I read his blog regularly because unlike our other detractors, he often has some kernels of truth once you filter out all the ad hominems. I think he's right about this point:
The reality is that 99.9% of everything they say is an attack on science and evolution. They don't have any answers themselves and they desperately want to show their flock that scientists don't have any answers either.
I think one improvement we could make is to focus more on patterns in biology that match what's expected under design, but are the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts or could do.JoeCoder
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Re: #46 Is it your position that this video presents a technically accurate representation of the goings-on inside a cell?SamHManning
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply