Home
» Intelligent Design » The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?
The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?
| September 3, 2009 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
The DNA code is both nearly universal and nearly optimal. With the exception of minor deviations occasionally discovered, the same DNA code is found in all species. And that code is so efficient it is sometimes labeled as “optimal.” This is yet another simple example revealing the absurdity of evolutionary theory. Let’s see why. Read more
51 Responses to The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To make the story complete, for those that don’t bother to read scientific papers,
Scientific paper on the origin of the genetic code via non-telic processes?
Please provide the reference.
Yet another solid and convincing argument for why Evolutionism fails.
Unfortunately, this is only the first step. Too many ID proponents have been lulled into thinking that if only their arguments and logic and reason against Darwinism are sound enough, evolutionists will eventually see the light. Instead, those evolutionists sit back and sneer, “Well, maybe our theory has problems, but yours is no better.”
As I’ve said before in a previous thread, the most critical thing for the ID movement to be doing right now is developing its own intricacies and methodologies, designing and supporting a much more intense program for conducting new empirical research — funding this through our own donations and volunteers if necessary.
Ten years from now, if we’re still talking about whether or not evolutionism is true, the movement will have been an utter failure. Instead, the topic by then needs to be why scientists working under the paradigm of Intelligent Design theory are producing new and valuable discoveries, while scientists working under the paradigm of Evolution theory are stagnating under the weight of their own assumptions.
Daisy,
As far as I can tell the only thing tat needs to develop is to allow the design inference.
We don’t need any new methodologies.
All we need is for scientists, conducting scientific research, to be allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data leads to.
“It would be too unlikely (even for evolutionists) for the identical unique code to have evolved independently in the different evolutionary branches…”
Too unlikely? For evolutionists? You mean like, ‘we came from nothing’! That kind of ‘unlikely’?
Joseph (5),
You miss the point. Anyone is entitled to infer intelligent design if they want to, the reason most scientists don’t is that when you dig into the evidence there really isn’t any solid evidence for it.
Additionally, inferring design is a dead end. What research can be done after that? You can’t (according to ID theology) infer who the designer is, or when they did the design, or pretty much anything at all. It’s a dead end.
That still doesn’t stop anyone from inferring it if they want to. However, it doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to them.
I absolutely disagree. What Intelligent Design theory needs most right now is a solid methodology for using the design inference to make new discoveries.
The big question, of course, is whether the design inference can be useful in modern science. Darwinists obviously think it is not, perhaps out of some paranoid fear that Intelligent Design theory means replacing all of modern biology with the three words “God Did It” — a ridiculously oversimplified delusion in my opinion.
But let’s not be distracted by concepts of what is “allowed” by the current scientific paradigm. The only potential obstacle I see standing in the way of ID’s own program of empirical research — an ongoing and unambiguous demonstration that the design inference is a useful tool in modern science — is the issue of funding, which is why I mentioned volunteers and donations.
Joseph,
You know that the paper CH built his case on is an analysis of (as far as I understand) pathways of evolution in the transition from prebiotic life to the root proper of the Darwinian tree of evolution.
I don’t see what difference CH thinks the paper makes. Darwinian evolution is still going strong.
In the meantime I am waiting for more peer-reviewed papers on teleology.
Cabal,
People reference scientific papers here almost daily.
It would do you well to read up on TOL failures and the failure of Darwins original theory, thus Modern Synthesis. Now even MS has failed admittedly by evolutionist. This is why they are turning to Margolis. Allen MacNeil from Cornell University, an avowed unguided evolutionist that has posted here many times admitted Darwin is dead and Modern Synthesis is superceeded.
But hey, u are the great “Cabal”
Lol….
If even the strongest supporters are admitting failures in all of these areas, why should we listen to you?
Darwinian evolution is a failed theory in multiple ways.
1) fossil records
2) gradualism
3) macro evolution
4) vestigial organs
5) Bears swimming to Whale theory
At best random mutation and natural selection are weak forces and cannot account for macro-evolution theories.
Your trivial snide remarks are all that is left of Darwinism. You are evidently to blind a follower to see this, or to deaf to hear.
Looking at the comments so far, I wonder: Do people read the paper CH built his case on:
Universal common descent still going strong, where’s the beef?
Big Bang Explosion of Information by Eugene Koonin
He has admitted the data does not match the Darwin TOL.
This is just one example. There are more that have been posted and “read” here in the past.
Cabal,
Do you read at all? Insults are grand aren’t they?
Gaz,
“Additionally, inferring design is a dead end.”
No, that is a lie, a mantra that you have heard repeated ad naseum by Darwinist and atheist. No truth at all to this statement. If it were true, all great scientific Christians in the past would have stopped doing science. But they did not, did they? Isaac Newton? Pasteur? Thomas Bayes? And the list goes on and on from long ago to the many scientist today that contribute to great discoveries and inventions like Geneticist John Sanford at Cornell University.
Please do not buy into a bunch of lies distributed by propagandist.
“What research can be done after that? You can’t (according to ID theology)…”
Oh really, now you are showing your colors Gaz. ID is not theology. It is a science of Design Detection. Now you are making your own theological arguments here which is a waste of time. If you want to argue theology of who the Designer is, maybe drift over to a theology web site.
“… infer who the designer is, or when they did the design, or pretty much anything at all. It’s a dead end.”
Actually, it appears you are unfamiliar with ID. It does not attempt to identify who the Designer is and as to “when” that is not ID either. You are confusing different fields of science.
“That still doesn’t stop anyone from inferring it if they want to. However, it doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to them.”
Why should anyone listen to your misreprensentations and misinformation about ID?
This is truly sad.
Cabal,
You say the paper is meaningless to Darwinism.
The papers fourth reason…
“Finally, the evolutionary dynamic that gave rise to translation is undoubtedly non-Darwinian, to most an unthinkable notion
that we now need to entertain seriously.
Gee, seems they’re talking about Cabal’s “unthinkable notion.”
Yes, they need to review the “undoubtedly non-Darwinian” processes within translation, transcription, editing, error-correction, alarms, alerts, etc., within the cell. Along with dynamic communications across all levels of cells and tissue types, nerves, brain cells, etc.
“These four considerations structure the approach we take in this paper.”
Gee, one of the four considerations is non-Darwinian.
Go figure, more…
LOL… this is fun reading. Essentially, Darwinian notions do not work at this level or in time before the grand magical mystery tour of “Emergence” miracles.
On a more serious note.
Congrats to these scientist for recognizing the failures of Darwinism in light of HGT. But as Koonin, Baptiste, et al, and many biologist understand today, they are cornered. They have no where to go and realize as much.
But this is a big admission. Lets read on…
We get it. Stuck with HGT, Darwin is dead.
They do not address Darwinism…
Well, that is wonderful. You found HGT. You realize HGT undercuts everything Darwinist have believed in, worhipped for the last 150yrs, but now you have to deal with it. So you roll out a “scenario” whereby a non-Darwinian processes enabled complexity prior to the assumed “Darwinian Transition” phase.
Kudos for recognizing non-Darwinian processes exist. Thats a first step. There will be more in the future as Darwinist wake up from their denial of Design.
Dr. Hunter: These fact-free assertions are what evolution is all about. In evolutionary thought, science has become a mechanism for story-telling.”
Eventually they will be able to refine the fable so that it joins harmoniously with the multitude of other fables that make up the Darwinian paradigm…er myth, catching unawares the unquestioning hoards. It’s kind of like a Star Trek mythology, where they try to make it fit as authentically as possible with the rest of the myth, so that the causal viewer will only notice what fits. Problem is, just as there are holes in the Star Trek myth, there are holes in the Darwinian myth that people notice if they are keen enough.
Joseph, “As far as I can tell the only thing tat needs to develop is to allow the design inference.”
I fully agree. But reality is not allowed in the Star Trek myth. It’s not authentic enough. A design inference is too conventional. They don’t want convention, but spooky. Evolution is spooky.
“Allen MacNeil from Cornell University, an avowed unguided evolutionist that has posted here many times admitted Darwin is dead and Modern Synthesis is superceeded.”
With all the exchanges I (the least among many others) have had with Allen here, I was not aware that he made this admission. When and where?
DATCG,”Well, that is wonderful. You found HGT. You realize HGT undercuts everything Darwinist have believed in, worhipped for the last 150yrs, but now you have to deal with it. So you roll out a ‘scenario’ whereby a non-Darwinian processes enabled complexity prior to the assumed ‘Darwinian Transition’ phase.”
I’ve always wondered about HGT myself. I’m not a scientist, but it doesn’t really seem as if it fits with a Darwinian perspective – unless of course it’s some sort of magic process that we don’t yet have an explanation for (but will) -then yes, it fits.
Hi, Gaz(6). As DATCG said in 13, ID is not theology. Many proponents of ID surely reinforced their religious beliefs because the specific evidences in science which we are knowing better opens the scenario for wondering who the designer was and what were (and maybe what are) his purposes. Some people still face it as being the contrary, as something like “Our beliefs cannot be wrong. Let’s just make the evidence be what we want”. 1) This statement could well characterize atheistic darwinism and six-day-creationism. ID defenders are showing to have their feet well on earth, some of them making concessions for common descent, for example.
The main point is that evidences is really leading us to infer design. It’s not like imagining dog forms in the clouds. I don’t see much sense in the feeling that scientists need to keep ID alive, as if it needed their thoughts to exists and as if it was threatened by new discoveries and fighting against them, for they could beat it and prove it wrong.
For these reasons, it’s not logical to think ID as a dead-end. It have made correct predictions, many of which weakened the case for pure materialism, and will surely continue to firm itself by new predictions it will make right. And, again, it’s not a matter of choosing what to believe in, but rather, finding the truth.
This is the problem of writing without much attention. Corrections to my comment at 18:
- Take away the “1)”.
- Evidences do not “opens”. They open
CY and DATCG,
Can you describe exactly how HGT is a problem for evolution, or how it helps ID? I don’t see how.
Of course Charles Darwin didn’t know about HGT, but he died 127 years ago. According to wikipedia, the first instance of HGT was observed “just” 50 years ago.
DATCG, #11
And yet he agrees that there is still a TOL.
Sounds more like he’s comparing the TOL to a Banyan tree when Darwin compared it to an Oak. Darwin’s theories are no more dead than Newton’s are.
“Darwin’s theories are no more dead than Newton’s are.”
As I said last week about Darwin
“Darwin on evolution was essentially a failure. He was wrong about gradualism. He was wrong that natural selection was a major factor in evolution. He was wrong about the Malthusian struggle for resources. He is probably wrong about common descent. On another thread the discussion of the Cambrian is a major obstacle in the common descent scenario.
Darwin was a decent scientist in his work on barnacles and worms and did a decent job of classifying species during the Beagle trip and apparently was insightful with his analysis of geology in South America but in evolutionary biology he was a bust. That is why it is so hard to defend him and his ideas on evolution. He got it all wrong and if the people of his day knew about the information content of the cell and the problems with the origin of new information they would have laughed him out of the building. He would have probably never have left Down House except to present his work on barnacles and worms.”
This is an interesting analysis by Cornelius that I had not seen before. That the code was optimal from the get go, when all those supposedly primitive cells used the 19 left handed amino acids plus one to make all the incredible machinery that is in the present day cell.
What are the odds that this would be all it would take so early in the game? All those incredibly future machines in the cell from those original 20 lego forms. That would be like saying that all we needed to build the space shuttle and orbiting station would be the same parts from Clinton’s steam engine just arranged in a different way.
Good insight Cornelius or whoever came up with it.
This is absolutely brilliant, and I think that if this were to happen it would be a wonderful thing. It would be one of the greatest paradigm shifts since Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and I couldn’t imagine not wanting to be a part of it in some way.
Having said that, I (and many others I’m sure) believe that such a thing will never come to pass. From what I know of the theory there doesn’t seem to be any way to turn it into anything that’s actually useful in the way described above. The ultimate conclusion of the theory seems to be that Some Guy Did It. By what means? Don’t know, can’t know. For what purpose? Don’t know, can’t know. What does it tell us about what we’re likely to see in biology as a result? Only that we’re likely to see whatever that guy happened to have done. So what exactly has he done? We’ll have to determine that by seeing whatever we happen to see.
I truly and honestly hope that I’m wrong, because I want to be one of the people that was alive and participating (even if only as a naysayer) when the scientific revolution came. I just don’t hold out much hope that it will actually come to pass.
OT: What are the chances? :
Three human genes evolved from junk
Jerry,
Quite simply, you are wrong.
Let’s look at the facts. Today we’re aware of the information content of the cell and it’s inner workings. Yet nobody, except for a few people who refuse to get their work peer reviewed, has “laughed Darwin out the building”.
If what you say were in fact true then when the “information” content of cells and their workings was discovered then “Darwinism” would have been dropped in favour of “something else”.
Yet that has not happened.
Therefore you are wrong. Wrong about what would have happened in Darwin’s day, wrong about what is happening today.
Wrong.
Gaz:
Is that why biologists have to keep reminding temselves tat what they are looking at is not designed?
What was the methodology used to make the determination that chance and necessity can account for all we observe?
1- ID is only abouyt the DESIGN
2- Yes the design inference opens up new questions- those new questions are separate from the design inference (just as the OoL is held separate from evolution)
3- No one is preventing anyone from trying to answer those new questions
4- Also reality tells us it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
But you are right. No one has to listen to the design inference.
But it is worth noting those who don’t can’t substantiate the claims of their position.
If they could ID would go away.
Daisy:
That’s already in place.
SETI uses such methodology.
How do you think design-centric venues operate?
Of course it can be useful.
For example the design inference is the only position fropm which we can argue that there is software involved in the development and daily functions of all living organisms.
This software is separate from the DNA hardware.
Cabal said that universal common descent is still going strong.
How can that be when there isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?
I am wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong but notice this “wrong thrower” throws no defense of Darwin. The reason is because no one can. All that is thrown by those who defend Darwin is rhetoric or irrelevancies or diversions. There must be overwhelming evidence somewhere and you would think someone would present it some day. Will Provine, a committed atheist and Darwinist, admitted it and said it was all based on faith.
If I am wrong then when is someone going to throw out some information or results or studies or findings that support Darwin? When will anyone be able to defend Darwinian macro evolution? The answer it seems is never. But they are wrongfully abused by us. Poor dears.
Those who are so easily wronged make our case so easy by their silence on what really counts, science. So keep up the good work.
jerry, #22
Darwin himself stated in Origins that different species evolve at different rates, so I don’t see how this was a failure on his part.
Can you identify another mechanism which has more influence on which organisms survive to reproduce?
Are you suggesting that organisms don’t compete for limited resources?
Since DNA supports the fossil record here, I would say he was probably right.
Since there are many natural explanations for the slightly accelerated pace of evolution in the early Cambrian, this is not quite the obstacle some would like it to be.
Cabal:
Natural selection in a nutshell- whatever survives, survives.
Cooperation is the rule. Competetion dwarfs in comparison.
How can DNA support the fossil record when we don’t even know if such transformation are even possible?
Not one scientifically testable explanation.
Joseph, #28
Phylogenetic reconstructions demonstrate perfectly how the genetic diversity we find today can arise from a common ancestor. It is even able to predict where missing intermediates should be which is how Tiktaalik roseae was discovered.
jerry writes:
One wonders why some of us even post anything here. When jerry specifically brought up the origins of complex adaptations like wings or multichambered hearts, I addressed both. I will address both again, just in case new readers think jerry’s lament is accurate:
Insect wings:
Averof M and SM Cohen (1997). Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature 385: 627-630.
From the abstract:
Not only that, but other complex systems (like the insect tracheal breathing system and spider’s spinnarets may also be descended from the gill:
Damen WGM, T Saradiki and M Averof (2002). Diverse adaptations of an ancestral gill: a common evolutionary origin for wings, breathing organs, and spinnerets. Current Biology12 :1711-1716
Multichambered hearts:
The fact is, we know empirically that subtle modifications of embryonic genes can result in novel traits. Is it hard to imagine the evolution of the multichambered vertebrate heart from a simple one-chamber precursor? Researchers have shown that a simple regulatory change (well within the power of a simple random mutation) during development can result in “an unexpected phenotype: transformation of a single-compartment heart into a functional multicompartment organ.” in the invertebrate tunicate Ciona intestinalis.
See:
Davidson B, WSJ Beh, L Christiaen, and M Levine (2006). FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple chordate. Ciona intestinalis. Genes and Development. 20: 27287-2738
.
Joseph (26),
“Is that why biologists have to keep reminding temselves tat what they are looking at is not designed?”
That’s your fantasy. In reality, none of the biologists I know do that at all. That’s because they understand they have evolved.
“What was the methodology used to make the determination that chance and necessity can account for all we observe?”
Actually, one could argue that it doesn’t – see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M....._synthesis
(I wrote) “Additionally, inferring design is a dead end. What research can be done after that? You can’t (according to ID theology) infer who the designer is, or when they did the design, or pretty much anything at all.”
(You wrote) “1- ID is only abouyt the DESIGN”
Exactly – a total dead end. Not science. Doesn’t even look at WHEN things might have been designed, despite the fact that the fossil record is there and they ought to be able to trace a design back to a particular geological time.
“2- Yes the design inference opens up new questions- those new questions are separate from the design inference (just as the OoL is held separate from evolution)”
Nonsense. If you infer design you can work out WHEN it was designed by looking through the fossil record to see when it was first designed. Just as evolutionists look through the geological record to see when a species first appeared. Why doesn’t ID do that? Because it doesn’t want to offend the fundamentalist Creationist element?
“3- No one is preventing anyone from trying to answer those new questions”
No IDist is doing the work either.
“4- Also reality tells us it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.”
Why?
“But you are right. No one has to listen to the design inference.
But it is worth noting those who don’t can’t substantiate the claims of their position.”
The evidnece for evolution is widely – essentially, universally – accepted in the scientific community. You IDists are the ones whoi have to come up with the evidence for your position. You haven’t (other than “it looks like its been designed so it’s reasonable to say it was designed”)
“If they could ID would go away.”
It never will. There will always be a religious core that needs it.
Dave Wisker,
Tell me why these are not “just so” stories with a little bit of science to support it. These are not coherent defenses of Darwinian macro evolution but mainly speculation. If you disagree then lay out your rationale. As I said before you tend to point to some study and that is it. Lay it out for us. If you cannot then we have to assume something.
Have to run for a day or so.
jerry,
You declare these as being incoherent. Incoherent in what way? Both examples show relatively simple genetic pathways to complex adaptations, requiring little extensive genetic changes (i.e, requiring little additional information). Since you insist on an iconoclastic definition of macroevolution as simply the development of complex adaptations, then both examples fit that criteria, and support a Darwinian view.
Your asking for additional information is fine, but to say nobody here has presented evidence that supports the Darwinian position and falling under your unique definition of macroevolution is both disingenuous and tiresome.
camaintx:
Phylogenetic reconstructions do not tell us anything about the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
Also they can be used as evidence for a common design and/ or convergence.
I am reading the book “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin.
Tiki was a vague prediction based on common descent.
However there still isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.
We should be able to take fish emryos, toy with them during deveoplment, and see if we can get a robust bone structure in the fins.
From there we can tinker away to see if we can get an air-breather- or go for air-breathing first.
But I bet we will find what Dr Denton already reported:
“Is that why biologists have to keep reminding temselves tat what they are looking at is not designed?”
Gaz:
Crick said it. Dawkins also said something very similar.
Also ID isn’t a dead end because once design is determined we still have to study it so that we can understand it.
I said:
“2- Yes the design inference opens up new questions- those new questions are separate from the design inference (just as the OoL is held separate from evolution)”
And you responded with:
How is that nonsense?
Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s), process(es) used, when, etc., is by studying the design in question.
So the correct order goes:
1- Determine design is present (or not)
2- Investigate accordingly so that we may answer any questions about it.
“3- No one is preventing anyone from trying to answer those new questions”
How do you know what IDists are and are not working on?
I would say with the very limited resources IDists are doing a good job at what they are doing.
“4- Also reality tells us it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.”
Because one can only understand something in light of how it arose.
Do you think geologists would understand Stonehenge? Or is it better for archaeologists to examine it?
Evolution isn’t being debated.
ID is not anti-evolution.
Nice try.
We IDists say if something looks designed we should be able to check into that possibility.
You and your ilk refuse to allow the design inference no matter what.
Also I understand the modern synthesis.
My question was:
“What was the methodology used to make the determination that chance and necessity can account for all we observe?”
Insect wings-
Scientists should be able to take developing crustys and modify them to get wings from gills.
Heck if they have the genes isolated what is keeping them from this test?
But the real question is:
What is the non-telic explanation for regulatory sequences?
Is there any science behind it?
Joseph, #39
They why are so many posts and comments here anti-Darwin? If ID is about the origin of life and not how one species evolves into another, shouldn’t you be trying to refute the work of Alexander Oparin instead?
camanintx:
Many of the posts are anti-Darwin because our beef is with the universality of the Darwinian model, not necessarily the universality of common ancestry (commonly defined as “the fact of evolution).
There is a vast chasm between the OOL question and the question of speciation. If natural speciation were proved it would hardly affect any of IDs core arguments. ID’s position (though that’s a bit of a broad statement because all telic non-Darwinians are IDers though we don’t all view ID the same) is that some phenomena of nature are not evolvable via the Darwinian mechanism, and that the only known mechanism that can evolve such things is “intelligence”.
Further on the OOL issue, there is a vast chasm between the hoped “because of such and such conditions in the prebiotic earth, a simple replicator started” to the simplest known form of life. That vast chasm is the proper study of evolutionary science, not OOL science.
David Wisker,
These are interesting articles but I do not see how they support Darwinian evolution. I believe the insect wing evolution is very speculative and any progress on the way to a fully functioning wing should have left many alternatives to live on into the future. There are a whole lot of wingless insects that exist today so why didn’t the winged intermediaries make it through.
Both the insect wings and the multi chambered heart seem to depend upon the finding of proteins used in the embryonic development of each entity. One would expect to find several proteins used to regulate the development of each so the finding of them is nothing unusual. Using these proteins to somehow stimulate an altered entity is also nothing new and what one would expect. However, the move from one form to a much more complex form requires more than just the expression or lack of expression of a couple of genes. It requires the coordination of a host of mechanism of which I would guess they do not yet know much about. And all of these intermediary steps had to be viable and many should have persisted.
Is there any evidence that these entities arose gradually and what are the intermediaries and how many organisms had these intermediaries or have them now in the world. We would expect thousands at a minimum. Otherwise they might as well have just “poofed” into existence.
I am far from an expert on these subjects and would welcome any insight you might have as to how these entities arose in the specific organisms. I can understand how natural selection would favor a wing or a four chambered heart but how did these complex systems arise to be selected? One cannot just say gills grew and then they eventually became wings. Or how did all the ancillary systems or parts arise for the four chambered heart. I don’t believe a four chambered heart is just an extra chamber or is it? All the extra plumbing and systems need an explanation or examples too. And where are they in today’s world or the fossil world?
As I said these appear to be interesting articles but it seems to me they beg the explanation (question). They all assume evolution by gradual means and then gear the discussion into this scenario with little evidence it actually happened this way.
Evolution isn’t being debated.
ID is not anti-evolution.
camanintx:
Darwinism is a specific form of evolution- one that mandates non-telic processes.
IDists understand that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes there is no reason to infer non-telic processes are solely responsible for its diversity.
The debate is all about the mechanisms- direceted (ID) vs undirected.
Joseph,
That’s a question I am not qualified to answer, but there may perhaps be some problems involved with replicating a process of I don’t know how many steps?
If it were as easy as your questions implies, I am certain it would already have been done.
But, if you are so interested in the subject, what about a study of Sean B. Carrol’s Endless Forms?
Cabal,
I read “Endless Forms…” AND “Making of the Fittest”.
Carroll doesn’t shine any light on the dilemma.
The issue here is one of testability.
The premise of UCD is useless to science without it.
“what about a study of Sean B. Carrol’s Endless Forms?”
There is nothing in Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms book that is a threat to ID. He is essentially describing the process of gestation and how the very complicated process proceeds through a remarkable unfolding of events that is barely understood and how a series of switches lead to the final organism. At one point he says the code that controls human embryonic development is about 10,000 pages of small print long. One of the best arguments for design I have ever seen.
In his latter book which essentially presented no examples that are a threat to ID he again helps the pro ID cause. Thank you Sean Carroll for making the design argument. I know you have to say you are anti ID but keep on writing these pro ID books.
Is Sean B. Carroll a stealth ID supporter?
No, it is just that Carroll, all his colleagues and most other scientists are too stupid to understand what it is all about.
Maybe the effort of the ID movement should be directed at educating scientists instead of being directed at the general public?
But isn’t that the problem, what is there to teach?
I suggest stepping up the work in the ID labs.
Joseph (39),
“We IDists say if something looks designed we should be able to check into that possibility.”
For pete’s sake, of course you can! It’s a free country. No-one is trying to stop you – in fact we’d be delighted if you tried and then published the results for all to see and analyse. Our beef has always been that ID makes claims and comes up with no evidence for them – it’s basically just “if it looks designed then it’s reasonable to assume it was designed until proven otherwise”, occasionally coupled with incorrect calculations of probability. On that point, Gil Dodgen once mentioned a few weeks back that he started to doubt evolution on the basis of high-school level mathematics; but despite requests from several of us to share the math with us, we’ve seen nothing.
“No, it is just that Carroll, all his colleagues and most other scientists are too stupid to understand what it is all about.”
You are implying that is we who are stupid but all we ask is that someone explain it to us instead of pointing to some source and say it is there. Why is it for over four years no one is able to explain it to us. You do not seem to be able to do so. All you do is say it is so but can not say why it is so.
Give it a shot and see how you do instead of just pointing to others. Tell us what is in Sean Carroll’s books that should be considered that we are not already considering. I have his first book and can look at what you consider relevant. Others here also have his books.
Jerry writes:
You will have to justify expecting “thousands at a minimum”. Given the age of the lineages involved, extinction can be expected to whittle down many of them. It is well-known that older lineages have less species diversity than younger lineages for just that reason. As for your argument from incredulity (given your admitted lack of expertise, one can only say your argument is basically “I can’t imagine how this came about”) consider we do have extant species that are intermediate in nature: some species possess both gills that can function in and out of water, and wings which they do not use for flight, but for other purposes. So we know, developmentally, that these features can coexist in the same individual. And we have the genetic knowledge that all of the features are generated by proteins coded for by very similar genes. An example:
Marden JH & MA Thomas (2003). Rowing locomotion by a stonefly that possesses the ancestral pterygote condition of co-occurring wings and abdominal gills. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 79(2): 341-349