Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Jonathan Wells

In a recent interview for Salvo magazine, I was asked what advice on junk DNA I would give to Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins.

On November 3, UD posted my response. According to the first comment following that post,

Jonathan Wells is the last person from whom Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins would solicit advice.

I agree. But the commenter, “Single Malt,” went on to question whether I’m qualified to give advice to anybody about anything in biology:

For those not familiar here is a quote…?“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” That’s incredibly damning if true. It basically tells us that before Wells had even studied the subject he had been instructed to devote his life to destroying it! ?Does this not color completely anything Wells publishes concerning the biological sciences?

Now, I don’t know who “Single Malt” is. To the best of my knowledge he (or she) has never met me, spoken with me on the telephone, or corresponded with me by letter or email. Since I like single malt scotch, however, if he or she had contacted me I would have been happy to explain over a friendly drink why I wrote the sentence quoted above.

Here’s what I would have said:

As an undergraduate at Princeton and Berkeley in the 1960s I studied mathematics, geology, physics and biology (with minors in philosophy and German). Along the way—despite my upbringing as a nominal Presbyterian—I became an agnostic and a Darwinist.(Note: By “Darwinism,” I mean the claim that all living things are descended from one or a few common ancestors, modified solely by unguided natural processes such as variation and selection. For the sake of brevity, I use the term here also to include Neo-Darwinism, which attributes new variations to genetic mutations.)

In 1963, I dropped out of Princeton and drove a New York City taxicab until I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1964. While spending two years in Germany as a medical laboratory technologist, I became opposed to the Vietnam War, and after I was separated from active duty in 1966 I transferred to Berkeley and joined the antiwar movement.

The Army called me back as a reservist in 1967, but I refused and spent a year and a half in prison. After being released from Leavenworth in 1969, I completed my bachelor’s degree at Berkeley. By 1970, however, I was repulsed by the increasingly violent and hypocritical Berkeley Left, and I soon headed for the hills. Living in a cabin I built in the mountains of Mendocino County, I was transformed by the beauty, peace and evident design around me. I ceased being an agnostic and a Darwinist.

In 1974 I joined Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. In 1976 I entered Unification Theological Seminary in New York, where I studied the Pentateuch under a Romanian Orthodox Jewish rabbi; the New Testament under a Reformed Church of America minister; the Early Church Fathers under a Greek Orthodox priest; philosophy under a Polish Roman Catholic priest with three earned doctorates; medieval theology under a Church of Christ missionary with a doctorate from the University of Tübingen; and Reformation and modern theology under a Presbyterian with a doctorate from Harvard.

I read—and was repelled by—modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and tried to re-fashion Christian doctrine in the light of it. I also took advantage of a weekly seminary shuttle to New York City to do research at the Columbia University biology library, where I became convinced that the Darwinian mechanism of accidental mutations and natural selection is incapable of producing the changes required by evolution.

As I researched more I concluded that the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism is its assumption that genetic programs control embryo development, with DNA mutations supplying raw materials for evolution. At the time, however, I did not question Darwin’s claim that all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Reverend Moon occasionally criticized Darwinism in his speeches, because it conflicted with reason and denied design. He often visited the seminary during my two years there, and we students would walk with him in the nearby fields and woods. He urged us (among other things) to pray in order to find out what God wanted us to do with our lives. I followed his advice, and my prayers strengthened the conviction I had arrived at through my studies that Darwinism (like Marxism and Freudianism) is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science—and that I should set out to destroy its dominance in our culture.

In 1978, I was one of a score of seminary graduates awarded church scholarships to pursue doctorates in religious studies at other schools. I went to Yale, where I did research on the nineteenth-century Darwinian controversies and received a Ph.D. in theology in 1985. After that, I was appointed Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City.

I still felt called to devote myself to toppling Darwinism, however, so in 1988 I resigned from my position to return to graduate school—this time in biology. I applied to several schools in California and moved there with my family, only to learn that I had not been admitted anywhere. I took a job as a medical laboratory technologist (the Army had taught me a trade!) and sometime afterwards went back to New York to attend a meeting between Unification Church leaders and Reverend Moon. When he learned that I was planning to go back to graduate school he admonished me not to do it, saying that I was too old (I was 45 at the time). After the meeting, however, I prayed for a long time and decided that I had to continue on my course.

I returned to California and applied again to various graduate schools. In 1989 I was granted interviews at Cal Tech, Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, and U.C. Davis. I chose Berkeley, where I completed a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology in 1994. By then—having been exposed to the actual evidence—I was skeptical of Darwin’s claim that all living things share a common ancestor.

A senior Unification Church leader then asked me to write something for other church members explaining why I went for a second Ph.D. even after Reverend Moon had admonished me against doing so. I wrote an essay that I thought would be for in-house use only, but it was subsequently posted on the Internet without my knowledge or permission.

I first learned that my essay was available online in 2001, when Jerry Coyne made it the alpha and omega of his review in Nature of my book Icons of Evolution.

Since then, many of my critics have quoted the now-infamous line, “Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” (For a sampling, just do a Google search on the words.) Remarkably, Darwinists never quote much else from my essay, even though the 18 words in this one line represent only 1% of it, while a subsequent passage dealing with my scientific reasons for rejecting Darwinism represents 37%. Talk about quote mining…

Nor (as far as I know) have any Darwinists bothered to learn anything about the context in which I wrote the essay. If they had, they would know that Reverend Moon did not instruct or command me to destroy Darwinism (though years later he commended me on publishing Icons of Evolution.)

So, can I be trusted to say anything concerning the biological sciences? I freely admit that I was motivated to pursue a biology Ph.D., in part, because of my religious views. On the other hand, Francis Crick freely admitted (to historian Horace Freeland Judson) that he went into biology, in part, because of his atheistic views. What ultimately mattered in Crick’s case was not his motivation, but whether his biological claims were consistent with the evidence. The same is true in my case. That’s why I cite abundant scientific references in my publications—such as Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, The Myth of Junk DNA, and “Why Darwinism Is False”, a detailed critique of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution Is True.

I encourage readers not simply to take my word for anything, but to go the scientific literature and check for themselves. After all, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.

Now, wouldn’t it have been more enjoyable listening to that over a glass of Glenlivet or Macallan?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Larry Moran:
My own view is that less the 5% of our genes have functional alternative transcripts. Other scientists think that number could be higher&maybe even 50%.
How many genes vs how many proteins- that is how we can figure out how much alternative gene splicing is going on.Joseph
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Intron length contributes to the timing of the transcript product. Also unused splices- that is unused alternative splicing is definitely a future function. As I said obviously you don't have any experience with designing complex technology. And in that case why are YOU misleading readers everywhere? But anyway Larry, I agree that you could be right and over 90% of our genome is junk. How the heck can you go out and scientifically demonstrate such a claim? Could some of the alleged junk be to maintain the gamete? Could some of it be for gamete recognition? The point being Larry is only ignorance sez 90%+ of our genome is junk, which means you are misleading readers.Joseph
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Joseph says,
BTW I- we- say Larry, et al.- you included- are wrong about introns- obviously they are functional as they allow for alternative gene splicing- some are even used. And that is just for starters. Right there is 30% that goes to the non-junk side of the scale.
We don't know whether alternative transcripts are common or rare. The consensus view among molecular biologists is that most splice variants are artifacts or splicing errors. We don't know what percentage actually represent functional alternative transcripts. My own view is that less the 5% of our genes have functional alternative transcripts. Other scientists think that number could be higher&maybe even 50%. See Alternative Splicing and Why IDiots Don't Understand How Science Works Splicing Error Rate May Be Close to 1% Even if you accept the higher number, that only means that one intron per gene could be required for alternative transcription. It does not mean that ALL introns are needed for alternative transcripts. See IDiots Do Arithmetic a Second Time - Same Result Let's assume that all introns are necessary. They aren''t junk. Does this mean that all intron sequences are functional and 30% of the genome can be eliminated as junk? Not at all. You only need 80 bp of DNA to have a functional intron. Almost all of the rest is junk. A considerable percentage of intron sequences consists of defective transposon pseudogenes that are junk by any definition. I estimate that about 0.4% of the genome consists of functional intron sequences. See What's in Your Genome? Junk in Your Genome: Protein-Encoding Genes Junk in Your Genome: Intron Size and Distribution Joseph, you are passing yourself off as an expert on this subject so I presume you knew all this, right? In that case, why are you misleading the readers of Uncommon Descent? (Is it possible that you didn't know any of this important information?)Larry Moran
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Joseph says,
Well paulmc, on one hand we have the team from ENCODE saying the humans genome is “pervasively transcribed” and on the other there is you, Larry and perhaps some others.
The consensus view among molecular biologists is that most of that transcription is either artifact or nonfunctional junk RNA. This particular controversy is so obvious that Wells couldn't ignore it, as he ignores all other contrary views. He had to devote a few pages to explaining why he disagrees with most scientists. When you use disputed results to bolster your argument it's only fair that you mention when they aren't facts. It is not a fact that most of the genome is transcribed and it is not a fact that most transcripts are functional. But you read my review so you already knew that didn't you?Larry Moran
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Intron size is also used as a timing mechanism.Joseph
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Chas:
In principle, all you actually need to facilitate alternative splicing is a splice site.
And introns provide that.
You don’t need the intronic regions to be 10+ times as big as the exonic regions to achieve this,
How do YOU know what is needed?
as well as a much clearer view on which intron-containing genes are actually alternatively spliced
For more protein products- IOW for getting more proteins from the same number of "genes". But anyway your position doesn't have any explanation for alternative gene splicing.Joseph
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Some are translated- that is in the book you didn't read.Joseph
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
F/N: In addition, you need to correct some serious polarising caricatures and distortions in your understanding of design theory that are propagated far and wide by objectors who should know better but do not seem to care about truthfulness or fairness. Cf NWE -- not the Wikipedia hatchet job -- here and look also at the weak argument correctives under the resources tab top this and every UD page. KFkairosfocus
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Gregory, Back ways around, I am afraid. A better warranted description is that we have recently had a coup in science and education institutions that thought the backdoor of so-called methodological naturalism (and aided by false revisionism of the history of science), has sought to impose a priori materialism on science and education. In some cases thinly vieled threats have been made. For the long term good of science and of society, they have to be corrected. (The links have more details.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Joseph, All major leaders of the IDM display an agenda. E.g. Stephen Meyer says he wants to change the rules of science. He simply doesn't wish to accept the 'rules of the game' as they are currently written. Would you then also say "Meyer, not ID?" Darwin's legitimate contribution(s) to 'science' have not ruined 'science.' However, "Darwin's errors" should be more widely understood and overcome. I'm not casting a stone at Darwin by saying this. Are you and Wells doing so by seeking to 'destroy' Darwin's major contribution(s) to natural science, e.g. 'species are mutable'? "Destroy Darwinism" is just rhetoric and posturing, when the 'bad ideology' is not fairly and clearly distinguished from the 'good science.' Darwin himself (defensively armed with T.H. Huxley's 'agnosticism') did not 'ruin science' any more than the Orthodox Christian I. Pavlov did. Now if you want to speak about B.F. Skinner's 'behaviorism'... Yeah, Joseph, you're correct that Wells might have been considering 'the evidence' on that mountain. I'm assumiing there were obviously 'designed' things there, i.e. for Wells' basic living needs, like a human-made house or cabin, kitchen table, knives, forks & spoons, hot plate, etc. Since Wells has not 'specified' what he was referring to that was 'evident design,' we are left without any 'evidence' to consider, just Wells' personal revelation.Gregory
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
Oh, and introns are transcribed, just not translated.Chas D
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
Introns, for example, function as spacers for exons to facilitate alternative gene splicing.
In principle, all you actually need to facilitate alternative splicing is a splice site. You don't need the intronic regions to be 10+ times as big as the exonic regions to achieve this, so the alternative splice theory needs to find an answer for intron size - as well as a much clearer view on which intron-containing genes are actually alternatively spliced, and what proportion of those alternative transcripts make the Function cut, pardon the pun.Chas D
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
So you are too lazy to do the work for yourself and you need me to spoon feed you.
If you are attempting to advance an argument, it is sheer laziness on your part not to back it up with direct answers. "It's in a book, somewhere; go read it. "
And if you want to make this personal then let’s get together and take care of it- “I’m talking to you”- bully nonsense.
I was 'making it personal' by a simple statement of the individual with whom I was attempting to communicate? You find that to be bullying, and offer to meet up for a rumble? For goodness' sake! I would suggest that calling someone 'moron', 'stupid', 'ignorant' and so on is a much better example of 'making it personal'. To be personal, you can't go three posts without descending to such a level. Anyhoo... all you have quoted is the presence of Alus in functional positions, which I have already noted. There are 1.1 million of them. What fraction is functional?Chas D
November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
One would think that to be active would mean removing the portion (90%) deemed junk and see if something develops. Also DNA does not need to be transcribed in order to have a function. Introns, for example, function as spacers for exons to facilitate alternative gene splicing.Joseph
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Joseph @ 21.1.1.1.2/3
True that was over 3 years ago but has someone found out otherwise?
If the debate about genomic "dark matter" and pervasive transcription was something you had a genuine scientific interest in, you would be well aware that there is an active other side to the debate. Here are a few things: a synopsis, a Nature News piece, and a peer-reviewed paper. Larry Moran has written a few times about the topic.paulmc
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
BTW I- we- say Larry, et al.- you included- are wrong about introns- obviously they are functional as they allow for alternative gene splicing- some are even used. And that is just for starters. Right there is 30% that goes to the non-junk side of the scale.Joseph
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Well paulmc, on one hand we have the team from ENCODE saying the humans genome is "pervasively transcribed" and on the other there is you, Larry and perhaps some others. True that was over 3 years ago but has someone found out otherwise? When the day comes tat someone goes into a lab and removes 90%- the junk- and gets a human to develop, let me know. Heck use mice- they have already seen that removong small amounts of DNA don't have any effect- go for the full 90% and get back to us.Joseph
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Joseph:
OK so your ignorance sez it’s junk. Got it.
Ignorance? What a bizarre answer. If that is actually what you took from everything I've written above, then you have not understood it. The irony that you would accuse me of ignorance in this exchange is staggering.paulmc
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Wells’ mountain revelation and ‘destroy ideology’ approach shows aptly that ID isn’t ‘pure science.’
No, it would mean that Wells has an agenda- Wells, not ID. Also if Darwinism is ruining science, and I say it is, then it should be welcome to have someone destroy it. But anyway perhaps it was the evidence that Wells was considering on that mountain. Reading Gothe gave Tesla inspiration for the AC generator.Joseph
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
paulmc:
So, whatever function might be posited, it doesn’t appear to rely on sequence specificity. This points to it not being function – or putatively being junk.
OK so your ignorance sez it's junk. Got it. But anyway with all your talk about degeneration it appears that you evos are shooting yourselves in the foot as it appears there isn't anything that can cause the changes your position requires. But keep up the good work as soon your position won't have any evidence at all except for this alleged junk.Joseph
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
"Fortunately science is not the only way to make discoveries nor advance knowldge." - Joseph Yes, this is obvious & not really worth repeating. The point is that, without 'doing science,' Jonathan Wells personally concluded 'evident design' in "the mountains of Mendocino county." Thus, the argument that "intelligent design is a purely scientific pursuit" is obviously untrue. Iow, it appears that a non-scientific 'design hunch' played a role in Jonathan's 'destroy Darwinism' approach. I'd still welcome Dr. Wells' guestimate of how many biologists are 'Darwinists' these days. My view, having worked in close proximity with biologists, is that most do not call themselves 'Darwinists' anymore, but rather use the ideas of Darwin that are still valid and relevant and discard those that are erroneous and outdated. Isn't this continual updating what 'scientists' are supposed to do? Repeatedly citing a few 'media active' scholars who call themselves 'Darwinists' does not mean that a majority or even a minority of biologists active today are 'Darwinists,' according to their own labels, not Dr. Wells'. "Darwinism (like Marxism and Freudianism) is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science—and that I should set out to destroy its dominance in our culture." - Dr. Wells Leaving aside Freudianism, on the ideological front it would seem that the IDM should spend more time on Marxism, in addition to Darwinism. The current international association president of a major academic field is a neo-Marxist. In the USA, it is as easy to consider Marxism 'dead' or 'destroyed' as it is to believe that the Cold War was won and socialism forever defeated (capitalism's great victory, freedom, democracy, etc!). Once one steps outside of the US context, however, things change signifiantly and Marxism is still alive and well in global scholarship, including its on-going reevaluation in China and Latin America. The 'material-empirical' base for natural sciences is still a common feature of 'doing science' that Dr. Wells is apparently seeking to change (the definition of) from within. Mind, Intelligence, Order, codewords for capital-D 'Design' = isn't this Wells' extra-scientific epiphany in the mountains? In this case, it seems clear that 'design philosophy' or 'design religion' has overlapped with 'design science' and thus undermines IDs claims to 'scientific purity.' From the point I made to Dembski, and how Wells reacted positively and personally to me, it would seem that Wells is content to rebuke the 'ID is a purely scientific pursuit' wing of the IDM. Wells' mountain revelation and 'destroy ideology' approach shows aptly that ID isn't 'pure science.'Gregory
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Well, I'll oblige you, but I'll note you have responded to serveral of my comments where they are laid out above. Firstly, there are parts of the genome that show constrained evolution, and parts that do not. By contraint, I mean that their rates of molecular evolution are reduced - they change less over time. This constraint is produced by purifying natural selection - the removal of the less fit. While some of this evidence comes from phylogenetic inferences that at least some here will reject because of cross-species comparisons, we can also observe the same patterns occurring within humans - e.g. between subpopulations. As we all accept common ancestry for humans at some point in the past, this shoud be fairly uncontroversial. The parts of the genome that show evolutionary constraint are quite small - e.g. the coding and regulatory genes that we all agree are functional. Many changes that can happen to these sequences reduce function - sometimes catestrophically so. Large sections of the genome evolve without evidence of this constraint. This implies that changes to these sequences do not affect fitness. This is why, when Kairosfocus suggested above that most of the genome is used to regulate body plan, I disagreed. While we undoubtedly don't know all of the regulatory sequences in the genome, we expect that for them to be functional they need a degree of evolutionary constraint - i.e. they need a degree of specificity. So, whatever function might be posited, it doesn't appear to rely on sequence specificity. This points to it not being function - or putatively being junk. Secondly, when mutations happen the result is one of three things. It might fall somewhere non-functional (or change something in a relatively unimportant way - i.e. a synonymous codon change) and have little or no affect on fitness. Or it might fall somewhere functional and have a positive effect. This is of course relatively rare - we can ignore these occurrences for this discussion. Lastly, it might fall somewhere functional and have a negative effect. When the last option happens it comes at a 'cost' to the population. Natural selection might remove the individual, or the individual might survive with lower fitness. Were the new allele to spread through the population, the population fitness would have been lowered. Ohno points out that genes in an individual have a 1x10^-5 chance of a de novo deleterious mutation. So, if we had 100,000 (10^5) genes every individual would carry new deleterious mutations and the population fitness would inescapably decrease with time. This led to an estimate of an upper limit of about 30,000 functional loci in humans. This is quite admirable work for the era - the current estimate is a few shy of 21,000. On a nucleotide basis, Ohno estimated that there would be upwards of 90% 'degeneracy' in the genome. Larry Moran's most recent estimate is that the known functional component is 8.7%. The point here is that the more that is essential in the genome, the more that you have for stuff to go wrong with. The current mutation rate would literally be the death of us if most of the genome required maintenance on the scale that functional genes do. These lines of evidence point to the same thing. Most of the genome doesn't have the hallmark of function - sequence conservation. Our mutation rate is too high for sequence conservation to be plausible via natural selection. Hence, either the rest of the genome has functions that don't require sequence specificity - which precludes the two explanations proposed above by ID advocates - or we conclude that we have putatively junky genomes. These are far from the only lines of evidence. Mike Lynch's work on the ability of populations of different effective sizes to purge slightly deleterious mutations like the duplication of non-functional DNA gives us a useful paradigm to understand the accumulation of junk in the genome. Some of the junk may eventually become functional. But this is unlikely to be the future story of the majority of our genome.paulmc
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
What are those alleged lines of evidence that you say support YOUR claim? And we directly observe redundancy and future functions in existing designs. Also supporters of 90% junk still cannot explain the 10% that they say does function.Joseph
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Strange that you didn't present something from Wells' book. But I do see that Dembski and Meyer say the functional part should dwarf the non-functional part. So how can we tell what % of the genome is functional, what part is for redundancy, what part is for future functionality, and what part is just for data storage, like RAM? IOW how can YOU support YOUR claim?Joseph
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
That preface doesn't support your claim.Joseph
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Larry, Intelligent Design Creationist only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant so don't hold your breath waiting for the "leadership" to respond to you.
1. The intelligent designer made a mistake.
1- Physical constraints and design compromises prevented a perfect design
2. The original intelligently designed genes could have degenerated
2- Due to genetic entropy the originally designed genomes have degenerated
3. Junk DNA could have been put in the genome by the intelligent designer as preparation for future creations.
3- Currently unused portions of our genomes are for possible future use That is what you can post. But anyway, according to what Wells said in the book there are functions for more than 50% of our genome, yet you say it is only 10%...Joseph
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
To reiterate, there are several lines of evidence that support the inference that a majority of the human genome is putatively junk, a claim in direct opposition to the writing of Jonathan Wells as quoted above. The lack of known function is not the main argument here, instead the problems of genetic load and lack of sequence conservation are central. That much of the genome is repeats of broken transposible elements is also of interest, but perhaps a secondary interest, for those making a case for the majority of the human genome being functional. So far, the ideas have variously been put forward by ID advocates that a majority of the genome is used to regulate body plan in development, albeit without evidence. It has also been suggested that some type of redundancy in the genome could be pertinent design to allow for future contingencies. Again, evidence for this line of thought has not been presented. Supporters for such cases have not explained how such roles would be performed without a degree of sequence specificity similar to known coding and regulatory sequences (i.e. without a similar degree of purifying selection on these genomic regions). As this is a thread is about Jonathan Wells, the OP is written by Wells, the topic at hand is the topic of his recent book, and the writer of the most thorough review of his book is commenting in this thread, it would be great to see Wells intercede to make his case here.paulmc
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 non-local ‘epigenetic’ information is implicated in controlling the 3-D spatial organization of body plans; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNy78O6ZpU8wpFIgkILi85TvhC9mSqzUSE_jzbksoHY/edit?hl=en_US
verses and music:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Third Day - I can feel it - with Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdhAdz6wHWc
bornagain77
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
The necessity of 'transcendent' information, to ‘constrain’ a cell, against thermodynamic effects is noted here:
Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420
i.e. It is very interesting to note, to put it mildly, that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must overturn Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism) ! ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 ================= And to dovetail into Dembski and Marks’s previous work on Conservation of Information;,,,
LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/
,,,Encoded ‘classical’ information such as what Dembski and Marks demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:,,,
,,,This following research provides solid falsification for the late Rolf Landauer’s decades old contention that the information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
,,,And to dot the i’s, and cross the t’s, here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Further note:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity). FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
The following describes how quantum entanglement is related to functional information:
Quantum Entanglement and Information Excerpt: A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in Quantum mechanics, relates how quantum entanglement is related to quantum teleportation in this following video;
Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation – Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5705317/
A bit more detail on how teleportation is actually achieved, by extension of quantum entanglement principles, is here:
Quantum Teleportation Excerpt: To perform the teleportation, Alice and Bob must have a classical communication channel and must also share quantum entanglement — in the protocol we employ*, each possesses one half of a two-particle entangled state. http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
And quantum teleporation has now shown that atoms, which are suppose to be the basis from which ALL functional information ‘emerges’ in the atheistic neo-Darwinian view of life, are now shown to be, in fact, reducible to the transcendent functional quantum information that the atoms were suppose to be the basis of in the first place!
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
Thus the burning question, that is usually completely ignored by the neo-Darwinists that I’ve asked in the past, is, “How can quantum information/entanglement possibly ‘emerge’ from any material basis of atoms in DNA, or any other atoms, when entire atoms are now shown to reduce to transcendent quantum information in the first place in these teleportation experiments??? i.e. It is simply COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for the ’cause’ of transcendent functional quantum information, such as we find on a massive scale in DNA and proteins, to reside within, or ever ‘emerge’ from, any material basis of particles!!! Despite the virtual wall of silence I’ve seen from neo-Darwinists thus far, this is not a trivial matter in the least as far as developments in science have gone!!bornagain77
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Mr. Moran, since you subscribe to and preach the atheistic/materialistic form of neo-Darwinism, let's go, step by step, through the scientific evidence that falsifies your atheistic/materialistic position: Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information Neo-Darwinian evolution purports to explain all the wondrously amazing complexity of life on earth by reference solely to chance and necessity processes acting on energy and matter (i.e. purely material processes). In fact neo-Darwinian evolution makes the grand materialistic claim that the staggering levels of unmatched complex functional information we find in life, and even the ‘essence of life’ itself, simply ‘emerged’ from purely material processes. And even though this basic scientific point, of the ability of purely material processes to generate even trivial levels of complex functional information, has spectacularly failed to be established, we now have a much greater proof, than this stunning failure for validation, that ‘put the lie’ to the grand claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. This proof comes from the fact that it is now shown from quantum mechanics that ‘information’ is its own unique ‘physical’ entity. A physical entity that is shown to be completely independent of any energy-matter space-time constraints, i.e. it does not ‘emerge’ from a material basis. Moreover this ‘transcendent information’ is shown to be dominant of energy-matter in that this ‘transcendent information’ is shown to be the entity that is in fact constraining the energy-matter processes of the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality:
The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
'Quantum Magic' Without Any 'Spooky Action at a Distance' - June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This following video illustrates just how 'spooky', to use Einstein’s infamous word, this instantaneous quantum action truly is:
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/
And yet, this instantaneous ‘spooky’ quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the ‘true’ description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale!
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – July 2010 Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1
Quantum Entanglement/Information is confirmed in DNA by direct observation here;
DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm
bornagain77
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply