In the prior post, I discussed challenges to the claim that our supposed fish-ancestry dictates that the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) must take a circuitous route from the brain to the larynx. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that common ancestry between mammals and fish is the best explanation for the nerve’s path. Would that refute intelligent design? Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne assumes that ID is incompatible with common ancestry, which it isn’t. As one pro-ID biologist wrote me on this topic, “this is only a problem for design if one assumes design means designed from scratch for each taxon, and if one believes that the designer would necessarily use the shortest distance between two points (in other words, Read More ›
It is difficult to escape the use of technological language in discussing cellular functions. Stephen Meyer has a section on information theory in Signature in the Cell and basically uses technological language or metaphors to describe DNA. The best language for describing DNA uses analogies to writing, copying and pasting, and software. Another example of this is in Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, where he uses a rotary motor to describe the function of a bacterial flagellum. This brings to mind an interesting question: what is the relationship between the development of technology and the discovery of the inner workings of the cell? They seem to go hand-in-hand.
This interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer about his book Signature in the Cell was conducted some time ago, but is a very good introductory discussion of DNA manipulation, cellular engineering and attempts to create living cells with computer assembled DNA at its heart.
In his book Why Evolution is True, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims that “Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we expect from evolution.” (p. 81) He makes this prediction because “[n]ew parts don’t evolve from old ones, and we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features–like the kiwi wing–that don’t work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers.” (p. 81) Thus according to Coyne, evolution predicts that some features will work well, some will work not-so-well, and some will work not at all. This is not exactly Read More ›
There’s an old saying in the law that goes like this: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the table. If the responses to Discovery Institute’s recent conference at Southern Methodist University (SMU) are any indication, the facts are not on the side of anti-ID faculty at SMU. To be more precise, SMU biology lecturer John Wise wrote a letter to the SMU Daily, co-authored with SMU anthropology professor Ronald Wetherington, which made no less than 8 express or implied accusations of “dishonesty” against Discovery Institute.*** In 7 instances they claimed ID is pseudoscience or religion.*** Quite a feat for an under-700 word op-ed. His online response is Read More ›