Home » Intelligent Design » Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

A paper written by an evolutionist from earlier this year, erroneously claiming to confirm common descent, has now been rebuked by other evolutionists. Unfortunately this is not a healthy sign of evolutionists turning to science, for the new paper is just as unscientific as the first.  Read more

A paper written by an evolutionist from earlier this year, erroneously claiming to confirm common descent, has now been rebuked by other evolutionists. Unfortunately this is not a healthy sign of evolutionists turning to science, for the new paper is just as unscientific as the first.A paper written by an evolutionist from earlier this year, erroneously claiming to confirm common descent, has now been rebuked by other evolutionists. Unfortunately this is not a healthy sign of evolutionists turning to science, for the new paper is just as unscientific as the first.A paper written by an evolutionist from earlier this year, erroneously claiming to confirm common descent, has now been rebuked by other evolutionists. Unfortunately this is not a healthy sign of evolutionists turning to science, for the new paper is just as unscientific as the first.
  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

  1. empirical evidence trumps all else in science!

    ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video – short version
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

    Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome – Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten – 2008
    Excerpt: (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
    http://www.paulyu.org/wp-conte.....genome.pdf

    Human ORFan count:
    Excerpt: Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-367842

  2. ‘Again I would like to emphasize, I’m not arguing Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems, the data on malaria, and the other examples, are a observation that it does not. In science observation beats theory all the time. So Professor Dawkins can speculate about what he thinks Darwinian processes could do, but in nature Darwinian processes have not been shown to do anything in particular.’ Michael Behe – 46 minute mark of this video:

    Edge Of Evolution:
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199326-1

  3. It is true that many supporters of ID are religious. We secular supporters of design are not well organized. I’d like to call your attention to my book:

    A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism

    http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

  4. Semi OT; A new paper is out,

    Dinosaur die-off cleared way for gigantic mammals
    Excerpt: The largest land mammal ever: A rhinoceros-like creature, minus the horn, that stood 18 feet tall, weighed roughly 17 tons and grazed in forests in what is now Eurasia. It makes the better known woolly mammoth seem a bit puny.,,, Within 25 million years of the dinosaurs’ extinction — fast, in geologic terms — overall land mammals had reached a maximum size and then leveled off, an international team of scientists reports Friday in the journal Science. And while different species on different continents reached their peaks at different points in time, that pattern of ‘evolution’ was remarkably similar worldwide. (please note: the ‘remarkable similarity’ of pattern (largest of particular ‘kinds’ first, smaller of particular ‘kinds’ later) supports the principle of Genetic Entropy (loss of genetic information) and does not support the ‘randomness’ that would be expected from a Darwinian evolution scenario)
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201....._evolution

    Giants among us: Paper explores evolution of the world’s largest mammals
    Excerpt:The researchers found that the pattern was indeed consistent, not only globally but across time and across trophic groups and lineages—that is, animals with differing diets and descended from different ancestors—as well. The maximum size of mammals began to increase sharply about 65 million years ago (with the extinction of dinosaurs), peaking in the Oligocene Epoch (about 34 million years ago) in Eurasia, and again in the Miocene Epoch (about 10 million years ago) in Eurasia and Africa.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....world.html

    What is conspicuously missing in the paper is any mention of the gross lack of transitional fossils between ‘kinds of mammalian species’. What is very interesting in what they do mention, is the strong emphasis they put on the consistency of larger first, smaller later. This finding clearly is not something that ‘random’ Darwinian evolution would predict, but is clearly something that falls completely in line with the Dembski/Marks Law of Conservation of Information as well as the principle of Genetic Entropy:

Leave a Reply