Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this comment I included an essay I wrote in 1994 at the behest of a Christian friend, David Pounds, after my conversion from militant atheism to traditional Christianity.

Dave encouraged me to write it, but it only chronicles one aspect of the journey (the most significant one).

But there was another extremely significant aspect of this journey, which I cannot overemphasize, and that was reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, recommended to me by Dave. I was thoroughly schooled in traditional Darwinian orthodoxy, and never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be problems with it.

It took me only a few hours over a couple of days to read the book, and my materialistic worldview concerning origins completely and irrevocably collapsed. The logic, evidence, and argumentation presented by Denton were compelling, and I realized that I had been conned by the “scientific consensus,” with the obvious intention of promoting a secular, materialistic worldview.

It also became immediately obvious that “God-guided evolution” was an oxymoron, since “evolution,” as defined in the academy and by its major promoters, is by definition undirected and without purpose.

This is why secular humanists (e.g., the NCSE) must denigrate, defame, ridicule, and otherwise abuse ID proponents, and fight attempts to present any contrary evidence. The stakes are high, for those who want to promote a godless worldview.

Comments
warehuff, I don't think so. If I may recommend a period of serious reflection upon the claims I made concerning language and information then perhaps you will understand. If not, well then, so be it. The fact that you think I've confused or conflated the two tells me you have not really understood the argument in the first place. In the meantime, I will look over the links you provided. Regards.tgpeeler
September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
tgpeeler, I think you're confusing language and information. (As you hint in #2.) Do you agree that whatever information is, the portions of DNA that specify proteins contain it? If so, then information can definitely be created by natural processes. As an example, consider the mutation to the DNA of some residents of Milano, Italy. That mutation changes the protein apolipoprotein-AI to a modified form known as apolipoprotein-AIM. People who are fortunate enough to have the apo-AIM mutation have a greatly reduced risk for arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attacks and stroke. (The mutation was discovered while doctors were investigating a family that virtually never suffered from heart attacks. Apo-AIM turned out to be why.) Apo-AIM removes cholesteral buildups on blood vessels and also has an antioxidant that prevents some of the inflammation damage caused by arteriosclerosis. The net result is a greatly reduced chance of heart attack, stroke and arteriosclerosis. I wish I had that new information in my DNA! The new information was produced by mutation, which is a natural process afflicting living organisms, which operate according to the laws of physics. Thus your claim that information cannot be produced by natural processes is wrong. Q.E.D. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html for details or google for apolipoprotein-AIM for lots more info. I particularly recommend http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12016263 which is titled "Recombinant apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) infusion into rabbit carotid artery rapidly removes lipid from fatty streaks." It looks like manufacturing and injecting the mutant APO-AIM can give us non-mutants the benefit of the mutation! Way to go, Darwin!warehuff
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
j-mac from way earlier... "Now here’s my (our) question. If natural processes could account for 99.99% of the formation of humans over a certain period of time,..." Now here's my (our) answer. Natural processes cannot account for any information of any kind, ever, in any possible universe. There are four (at least) pre-requisites for information: 1. symbols 2. rules for manipulating those symbols. (We might call 1 & 2 a "language".) 3. free will for following the rules, so as to create information. 4. an intent or purpose to communicate a message. Physics (natural processes) never has, never will, and never can explain any of those prerequisites for the very simple reason that they involve ABSTRACT or immaterial "things." The reason this is so is because physics is about matter and energy, not about abstract or immaterial things. Dear God in heaven, what is so difficult about this?? It really is beyond me. If you think I am wrong, and I know you do, just give me ONE example of information created by physical processes unaided by mind. JUST ONE. In other words, create a message or tell us how, in principle, a message of any kind, biological or otherwise, could even begin to create information. In other words, falsify my four pre-requisites.tgpeeler
September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
ID has to find even more compelling evidence than evolution has if it expects to find wide acceptance.
Here's an interesting and unexpected development: a plasmid that seems to carry all the proteins necessary to produce a flagellum, but not attached to a genome. It seems capable of infecting bacteria of many types, possibly conferring motility. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2615216/ It was found in one of the first bacteria to be fully sequenced. If it is unique, what are the odds that it would show up in the first few out of millions of species that might be sequenced? If it is not unique, would an ID advocate expect plasmids to come in many varieties, possibly with many subsets of genes for complex structures? The linked article describes a bacterium that caries the plasmid, but is itself, not motile. What's up with that?Petrushka
September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Sorry, gpuccio, but doing nothing and waiting for further discoveries to confirm Intelligent Design has been a losing proposition since 1859. It's basically saying that ID theorists can't even think of any experiments that would validate ID theory, but we should believe it anyway. No other branch of science gets away with this and there's no reason to make an exception for ID, which has been a failed theory for over a century and a half after all. The sad fact is that anybody can come up with any kind of hypothesis and hundreds of weird ones are thought up every year. (Did you see that Geocentrism is back again?) To gain widespread acceptance, a hypothesis needs lots of supporting evidence. The Gold Standard for evidence is to have a candidate hypothesis make a prediction that differs from whatever theory is dominent in a non-trivial way and then to do an experiment or find some evidence that matches the prediction. For instance, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity wasn't widely accepted until it was tested by measuring star deflection during a total eclipse of the sun. The deflection was what Einstein's theory predicted and that was the start of relativity's wide acceptance. Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift was interesting and quite a bit of evidence supported it, but virtually nobody gave it any creedence - until bands of alternating magnetic polarity were found paralleling undersea mid-ocean ridges, which were direct evidence of the plate motion that Wegener's theory predicted. ID is up against a well developed theory that was first proposed 150+ years ago and which is supported by many lines of converging evidence, such as fossils, homologies between closely related species, distribution of plants and animals, dna evidence and more. ID has to find even more compelling evidence than evolution has if it expects to find wide acceptance.warehuff
September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
warehuff: The mean old science establishment can’t think of any way to do that, so they say that ID isn’t testable. No, they say that becasue they don't want to accept ID as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply a fasle defense. So how would you go about it? What kind of tests will tell you who the designer is, how and when the design is implemented and whether the implementation was gradual or sudden? No special tests are needed. Just a better understanding of the main biological problems will help clarify whether darwinism or ID explain better the facts. (Indeed, I am sure ythat oit has already clarified that, but as most people still stick to dogma, maybe further evidence will help). So how would you go about it? What kind of tests will tell you who the designer is, how and when the design is implemented and whether the implementation was gradual or sudden? Just an example. Darwinism today still hides behind many details we still do not know well: it could be this way, some millions of functional intermediates could be found for protein domains evolution, and similar fairy tales. As we sequence more genomes, study more 3D protein structures, understand better the relationships between species, correct the errors in molecular clocks, analyze better the homologies between proteins, and so on, we will certainly understand what the real scenario of evolution is. Then, it will be easier to see where the information gaps are, and the ID approach will be able to identify at least some clear instances of jumps in the information content of the genome and the proteome fro which no ither explanation than a designed intervention will be available. The time factor will be critical, and it will give us some insight about the "graduality" problem. As we get rid of the false notion that only survival has driven evolution, we will begin to ask what the real motivations for the design structure may be. Exploration of possible functions and expression of life potentialities could be recognized as a better unifying concept for the diversities of life design. Even more interesting could be the details about design implementation: in particular, we should be able, with enough detail, to distinguish between the effect of guided mutations versus artificial intelligent selection after a targeted random search. The phenomenology of those scenarios will obviously be different, but at present we have not enough "resolution" of molecular events to decide on those subjects. And so on. As you can see, the problem is not to "prove" ID. The problem is to discover facts, and reason correctly about them. ID and darwinian evolution are not specific interpretation of small parts of reality: they are both very general theories, under many aspects antagonistic and incompatible, to explain the whole of biological reality. There are no small tests for them, but only the big test of understanding what life is, and how it originated.gpuccio
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
RE 105 Great post upright. Since when is saying one is "posturing" uncivil? I dunno seems pretty tame stuff especially when it was an accurate observation!! Vividvividbleau
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
Correction: The Templeton Foundation has financed pioneering research on the effectiveness of PRAYER, not dreams. Sorry, it's early in the morning.warehuff
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
gpuccio: "The design inference is only the first step, and the only reason why we cannot go much further at present is that exactly that first step is at present fought fiercely by the scientific establishment with false arguments such as yours, and is not even geven the minimal status of a testable hypothesis." The only people who can make ID a testable hypothesis are ID theorists who think up ways to test it. So how would you go about it? What kind of tests will tell you who the designer is, how and when the design is implemented and whether the implementation was gradual or sudden? The mean old science establishment can't think of any way to do that, so they say that ID isn't testable. But you don't have to take any of their guff. Just think up tests that will answer those questions, do the tests and throw the results right in the establishment's face! Money won't be a problem. The Templeton people have oodles of money and they have already financed pioneering research on the effectiveness of dreams. If you or any other ID researcher presents them with any kind of test that looks like it has a chance of answering any of your questions, the money will be forthcoming. Go to it!warehuff
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
UB: I am really happy to be in together with you! :)gpuccio
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
Cabal: In many threads I have stated that my vision of ID is completely different form what you describe. The design inference is only the first step, and the only reason why we cannot go much further at present is that exactly that first step is at present fought fiercely by the scientific establishment with false arguments such as yours, and is not even geven the minimal status of a testable hypothesis. If we accept the design inference for biological information, a lot of legitimate questions arise, such as: 1) Who is the designer (or who arethe designers)? 2) When is the design implemented? 3) How is the design implemented? 4) What formal characteristics can we observe in the design? 5) What purpose can be infered for specific designs? 6) Is the design implementation gradual or relatively sudden? And so on. Now, my point is that all of these question can and must be approached empirically, even if we cannot be sure that all of them can be easily answered. For instance, as we know more details about genomes, proteomes and natural history, it will be possible to apply the concept and measure of dFSCI to many well defined scenarios, and that will certainly tell much more about the time modalities of implementation of the design, and about the characteristics of the design itself. In the same way, further understanding of the structure of protein functional space will allow better measurements of dFSCI in multiple cases. All of those things, obviously, will allow more detailed evaluation of the alternative darwinian model. Because, as I say often, there is no darwinian research or ID research: research is the search for facts, and it is one. But, obviously, both tha planning of research and, especially, the interpretation of results are haevily dependent on the general model which is assumed. Finally, I find that your last phrase is epistemologically strange. You say: By evidence, I am thinking more like something observable or tangible rather than inferences, (im)probability calculations and such. Why do you say that? Facts are facts, and I think we agree on that. But the assume a meaning only in the context of scientific theories. And scientific theories are inferences (at least the empirical ones, leaving out mathematics and logic). And (im)probability calculations are by definition an essential part of any scientific theory which includes the evaluation of random events or just of random data. So, are you criticizing ID for doing what science should do?gpuccio
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Tell us what you propose can be done to give back (at least some of) what has been taken from him by your side of the argument?
How about establishing online journals [done] where ID proponents could publish the results of serious research? Since this has been done several times, what happens to those journals? Why do they wither for lack of serious research articles? Gpuccio has published several critiques of Szostak on these threads, but they are lost, because threads here get pushed down to the point where no one can find them. If ID proponents have ideas worth preserving, they should be worth preserving in a repository that has a memory, so that they can be discussed. The other dimension of this is that the authors of these articles need to engage the science community and respond to critiques. Having an online journal ensures that there is a place to respond, a place where authors can publish and defend their best ideas. Blogs and forums are entertaining, but they have no memory.Petrushka
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
gpuccio,
one of the few speculative papers which are published with the main purpose of falsifying ID (the science which should not be a science)
Forgive my curiosity, but exactly what is the theory of ID? AFAIK, it simply is the 'design inference'; i.e. that "certain things are too complex to be the result of natural ..." and therefore must be the result of Intelligent Design, i.e. the work of an intelligent designer, most probably G-O-D. Since we are left with what most likely amounts to high level magic inaccessible for study by any means or methods available to us, how could it be studied, or falsified? As far I've been able to find, the scientific consensus on ID is that not being a scientific theory, it is not available for falsification. Any argument may be countered with "we don't know who the designer is, or how he works". That is, anything may be attributed to the designer. Could you point at some of the potentially falsifiable evidence of design? By evidence, I am thinking more like something observable or tangible rather than inferences, (im)probability calculations and such.Cabal
September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
Upright re #105 BRAVO. And regarding #107, by my (very high) standards (that I myself never attain) you are both paragons of civility and intellectual honesty.tgpeeler
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Hi House Street, It is I being chastized for incivility. GP is in for intellectual dishonesty.Upright BiPed
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, Right on. Gpuccio consistently answers the questions put to him and then some; and not just on this thread. He goes out of his way to provide clear and direct responses, even to dishonest questions, in some cases. So I find it astounding that he's being chastised for "incivility", just by virtue of him being a tad impatient. I sure would be (and then some). I would agree that the general trend is as presented in 101, just as a casual observer.HouseStreetRoom
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Since I am the uncivil one to whom the above comments are targeted, perhaps I should make a comment about it. But first, I would like to focus attention on comment #101 by Gpuccio. GP, your observations are exactly what I was reacting to. Because ID opponents can’t really say anything about information, because they can’t produce a symbol-making mechanism, because they can’t answer how meaning became instantiated into matter, they are instead reduced to an endless shuffling of the argument itself. Kicking the can down the road, as it were. If this was any other topic whatsoever, I think the vast majority of observers would get it in an instant (if for no other reason than the dynamics). Anyone who has lived with even a modest amount of conflict or reflection in their lives KNOWS what it means when someone continuously badgers a question (virtually any question) without ever addressing it. We know this because we are interacting human beings. We all KNOW what it means when someone constantly changes the issue, or when they incessantly demand that an answer must be given in a certain way. It is one of the things that ID opponents seem to forget. Perhaps they forget it amongst the emotional certainty they gain by their sheer numbers (since it certainly can’t be their evidence). No matter how you attack this topic as a competition between defenders (of their own ideas) you cannot remove the “human” from it. You can’t remove the human dynamics. We all are in the same boat when it comes to this part of the argument. As for mathgrrl, she was given star treatment by GP who patiently responded time and time and time again. Wrapping up your schtick in niceties doesn’t change the BS. No more than crying crocodile tears when someone points it out. - - - - - - - By the way, how many of you ID opponents would like to give us a full dissertation on how badly you feel about the constant and very personal haranguing given to ID proponents by your esteemed brethren like PZ Meyer, or Richard Dawkins, or Chucky Moran, or Hitchens, or Coyne? How many of you will take the time to produce the quotes one by one and then attack them with your righteous indignation? How many of you freedom lovers want to produce the comments by the leader of the NCSE who thinks grad students should be measured by their religious convictions? How many want to explain in detail how professionally insulting it is for Michael Behe to be cordoned off by his university. Perhaps you can produce some other such instances which may then be used as a comparative model of how he should be treated? Give us an explanation as to how such an abomination of professional conduct could gain a hold on the leadership of an American university? Tell us what you propose can be done to give back (at least some of) what has been taken from him by your side of the argument? Snore. The moderation policy of a smallish website is much fairer game, is it not?Upright BiPed
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Evolution is a faction. Nice one , Clive. Can never have too many tools in the box. Thx.Oramus
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
It is particularly interesting that adaptive mechanisms do use controlled random search in their context, but only in the range of what random search can really do.
Mutation and selection has been found to work very rapidly starting from a random sequence, up to the mid-level of functionality. I linked a number of papers confirming this. In other words, the origin of proteins is relatively easy. What gets slow is perfecting them. This is the area examined by Axe and Durston. In modern organisms, mutation and selection appears to have a limited range, and it does. When you are near the optimum, nearly every direction is downhill. But there is no reason for us to argue this. Neither of us is an active researcher, and there are plenty of work being done on protein evolution.Petrushka
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
gpuccio; "Or, if the case requires it, to ask brilliant side questions about chihuahuas." I think I have already been suitably disciplined about that haven't I? But actually, it was a serious question. Does artificial selection produce CSI? Actually, I think you say that it does right? Because it is guided with a specific goal in mind. By the way I love cats too. I have a 16 year old blue Burmese who has been a faithful companion since a kitten. Way more interesting than a dog.zeroseven
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
andrewjg: You are perfectly right, and you stress a very important point: adaptive mechanisms are mistaken for examples of unguided evolution, while they are evidently necessity algorithms embedded in genetic information, supreme evidence of intelligent design. Plasmids and HGT in bacteria, as well as the two mechanisms in the immune system which create the basic antibody repertoire and determine the increase in affinity after the primary immunological response are very good examples of that. It is particularly interesting that adaptive mechanisms do use controlled random search in their context, but only in the range of what random search can really do. Antibody maturation is really a wonderful model for that.gpuccio
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
People treat evolution like it is a single thing. They believe that for example bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is proof of evolution from a single cell to what we have today.
After 150 years it is impossible to summarize the work of tens of thousands of researchers into a single, simple, argument. It is impossible, even for a biologist to know the details of all the evidence. And it is impossible to prove that ID is false. It is only possible to continue finding evidence that, as Wallace suggested, varieties tend to depart indefinitely from the original type. Events like the appearance of a new plasmid gene in India, one that confers immunity to all antibiotics, and which can infect a wide range of bacteria types, is extremely interesting. No telling yet whether it will "prove" anything, but it demonstrates that a functional gene can spread across a wide variety of bacteria, and does not have to originate in the individual bacterium's genome. Such a mechanism "might" explain how functional genes could accumulate at a rate faster than possible for a single organism.Petrushka
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden@99 I am probably one of those semi educated but I think you are right. Its sort of the emperor's clothes problem. "You're not one of those plebeians who believe in ID are you, why don't you join the ranks of the informed, the people in the know, the people who have evolved beyond irrational beliefs". Anyway one of my favourite quotes is by Malcolm Muggeridge, "Education, the great mumbo jumbo and fraud of the age purports to equip us to live and is prescribed as a universal remedy for everything from juvenile delinquency to premature senility." It is interesting following the Evolution / ID debate outside of this forum. People treat evolution like it is a single thing. They believe that for example bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is proof of evolution from a single cell to what we have today. They think the fact that species have the ability to adapt to an environment is proof the ID is false - it does not occur to them that the ability to adapt may be an excellent design feature.andrewjg
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Clive: Yes, it's becoming rather boring. The sequence is, more or less (at least with me): Q: You have not given a definition of dFSCI A: Yes, I have. Here it is, again. Q: But you have not shown how it can be measured. A: Yes, I have. But here it is again, anyway. And please, read the Durston paper. Q: But you have not shown a real case where it has been applied. A: Yes, I have. Here and here and here. And Durston has measured it in 35 different protein families, and published the results. Q: You have never said what Durston measures. A: Yes, I have, here and here and here. He measure dFSCI, exactly what you requested. Q: I don't accept Durston's metrics, and never will. And anyway, it has been refuted (like Behe's IC). And anyway, you have never defined dFSCI. And so on. With third party disturbers always ready to cite (without ever discussing it in detail) one of the few speculative papers which are published with the main purpose of falsifying ID (the science which should not be a science), as though they were the Bible and we all had to accept what they say just because they exist. Or, if the case requires it, to ask brilliant side questions about chihuahuas. (Just a suggestion to my kind interlocutors: I am a cat guy, you just ask about cats and you will conquer my heart). If it were not for the few, but remarkable, "enemies" who are serious and honest, even when they fully disagree, no interesting discussion would ever arise...gpuccio
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
gpuccio,
As I asked Indium, why do darwinists start to imagine things, when they have no more arguments?
That very simple question is what initiated my first steps into suspicion of Darwinian evolution. Countless times from "experts", some I had taken classes from in undergrad, would support their Darwinian explanations with pure story-telling. It's like Dan Brown's book The Davinci Code, which some people called "faction", because it mixed "fact" and "fiction" interwoven together so tightly that it is difficult to ascertain where the one ends and the other begins. But this is the modern method of explanation, unfortunately, and evolution in particular. Clive Hayden
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Yes, and most americans believe in alien abductions: http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
That link doesn't work for me, and you're implying that people shouldn't believe in alien abduction, which is just a form of begging the question, because you're acting as if it's already been answered in the negative, and that they are wrong in supposing otherwise, when it hasn't been answered in the negative.
Mathgrrl, actually ID is taken seriously by a majority of Americans:>Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design.....When I have a problem with my car, I don't care what 'most americans' think the solution is, I care what most mechanics, think the solution is.
This is begging the question yet again, because you're presupposing that ID is wrong, and then proceeding as if it is not an open question. This is really just another way of shutting off inquiry into interesting things like ID for an adherence to some philosophical presupposition that has nothing to do with the actual evidence. If you've already answered the question about ID or alien abduction or whatever open question there may be, then of course you're going to find them wrong, because you started your weighing of everything with the answer already in mind. Just as if you don't trust a man before you meet him, nothing he says will be believed. This is begging the question. And you've fooled yourself into thinking that "experts" don't carry with them loads of preconceptions and presuppositions, and you take whatever they have to say with a spoon and a smile. At least the public at large is smart enough to have a healthy dose of skepticism, and the only folks that buy expert advice entirely and in almost every case are the semi-educated, educated just enough to be confused, but not enough to rise from the mire. They actually will be most susceptible to the propaganda that any "expert" claims, whereas the work-a-day American will have a healthy skepticism.Clive Hayden
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
This probably explains why protein binding sites are difficult for mutation. They can’t tolerate small changes.
I'd be interested to know if New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase 1 is an instance of new complex specified information or not. Perhaps a related question would be in order: What exactly is the function of a plasmid?Petrushka
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
warehuff@92 Actually computer code could easily be more robust than that. There is a portion of code that will not be but lets say I have a very small kernel. It basically loads some instructions into the executable address space. Now those instructions could be stored with as much redundancy as you may care for. A CD/DVD has a lot of redundancy in it. That is why you can scratch it badly before it becomes useless. A CD's can contain programs e.g. when you install your OS. Its the beauty of serialisation. When you talk about mutations you are typically talking about protein coding areas. Now if the mutation occurs in an area of the protein which is resistant to mutations i.e. they change the protein but don't prevent it from being functional then it should continue to work. But that would not be true if the laws(rules) for how proteins fold where to change. Follow me for a bit. So for example if I have a vector file containing a diagram of say a house it could withstand quite a bit f mutation(random change) and still define a functional house. So digital code can very resistant to random change. But computers basically create virtual machines - they have their own laws (instruction sets). If you fiddle with the instraction set it won't work at all. So in summary proteins are like digital specifications and protein folding laws are like a computers instruction set. This probably explains why protein binding sites are difficult for mutation. They can't tolerate small changes.andrewjg
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
jurassicmac: for once, I am with you: I like to be minority. Like in: most scientists believe blindly and obtusely in an irrational doctrine called darwinian evolution, except for a few illumined anticonformists, who embrace a much smarter view called ID... :)gpuccio
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
addendum: Also, when someone says "Most Americans don't accept evolution," your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; what you are actually saying is "Most Americans don't accept evolution,except the experts in the fields of biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, etc. That would be like saying: "Most americans think vaccines cause autism; except for doctors, medical researchers, or experts in autism or vaccination."jurassicmac
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply