Human Sperm

The June 2012 issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution contains an important review of research on biological inheritance. This article, "Rethinking heredity, again" (a free download), shows that the pioneers of the evolutionary neo-Darwinian “Modern Synthesis” since the 1930s have been prematurely dismissive of what is called “soft” inheritance. This allegedly discredited sort of inheritance includes the idea that organisms can pass on traits that they acquire during their lifetime. Although much of this perspective, associated with the late 18th-century scientist Lamarck, has not been well supported by evidence, a broader category of inheritance factors beyond “hard” genetic inheritance has recently come to light, and is know as “nongenetic inheritance.” In short, what you inherited from mom and dad includes both genes, and more. Together, all these factors determine the physical traits you exhibit. FULL POST

Model of the DNA Molecule

What does new the DNA-encoding biotechnology announced on May 21, 2012 have to do with the mystery of life’s origin? Read on.

The DNA in every living cell stores digital code that directs the sequencing of amino acids in protein construction. Proteins are the most important kind of biologically functional molecules. They make up most of the basic physical structures and enzymatic functions in cellular life. The problem of life’s origin is essentially the problem of how biological information came into being (and how it came to be stored in DNA, RNA, etc.).

Think about the above paragraph in this blog. I originally typed that paragraph on my Mac in Microsoft Word. I then uploaded it to the blog website. This paragraph actually originated in my mind, was sent through my brain to activate nerve fibers that contracted muscles, which caused a certain sequence of keyboard strokes (letters in the English alphabet, spaces, punctuation, etc.). After several other chosen clicks and keyboard strokes, it was uploaded. From keyboard strokes to text on the blog, the data that originated in my mind was stored as digital code and sent digitally though the Internet. FULL POST

The four Emory University biology faculty who played the role of Darwinian thought police had the opportunity to hear Dr. Ben Carson talk Monday about the kind of tolerance we should all strive to exhibit:

I know there was some controversy about my views on creation and somebody thought that I said that evolutionists are not ethical people. Of course I would never say such a thing and would never believe such a thing nor would anybody with any common sense. So that's pretty ridiculous…. Many people came to this nation and they were trying to escape from societies that tried to tell them what they could say and what they could think and here we come reintroducing it through the back door…. The emphasis should be on learning how to be respectful of individuals who have a different opinion. [Well said, Ben. Watch all of Dr. Ben Carson's speech, and read insightful commentary about it, here]. FULL POST

Dr. William Dembski

Design theorist William Dembski and BioLogos President Darrel Falk participated in an online forum (see the four essays linked here) that addressed the question: "Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?" Dembski answers “no.” Falk agrees with Dembski on many points, but maintains that “the BioLogos position is not the same as Darwinism.” BioLogos is one of the leading organizations devoted to promoting a Christian version of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Dembski outlines the essentials of Christianity and Darwinism as follows:

Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

• (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
• (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
• (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
• (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism: FULL POST

Dr. Ben Carson: Recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House on June 20, 2008

Although Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson doubts Darwinian evolution, he agrees with Darwin that if evolutionary theory were true, then Christian moral precepts such as the golden rule and love for all human races (ethnicities) are no more natural or normative than selfishness and racism. Although Carson disagrees with Darwin and Darwinists today about the plausibility of the evolution of all life from a common ancestor, Carson agrees with Darwin and many leading Darwinists today about the moral implications of Darwinism.

At least 500 students and faculty at Emory University (see my last blog post about the Carson-Emory controversy) are uninformed about how Darwin and leading Darwinists today have undermined belief in the objectivity of moral values such as “infanticide is wrong.” For such sentiments to count as objective moral truths would mean that they could not be merely illusions thrust upon us by the accidents of our evolving genes. FULL POST

This week David Klinghoffer told a shocking story of Darwinian intolerance and intimidation:

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr. All that, but if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications -- everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University is that man. He's scheduled to give the Commencement address and receive an honorary degree at Emory University but close to 500 faculty members, students and staff protested, drawing up a gravely serious letter to the student paper expressing their "concerns." Over what? Carson had no intention of speaking about evolution but someone dug up an impromptu interview he once gave to a publication associated with his Christian denomination (he's a Seventh Day Adventist). FULL POST

Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed publications that support intelligent design. One of the essays listed there is explained briefly in a podcast at ID the Future: Pro-ID Paper Examines Irreducible Complexity of Birds in Flight. On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin reports on a 2009 peer-reviewed paper arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system. The author, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh, challenges his critics to consider the design hypothesis as a valid scientific assumption "borne out by the evidence itself."

Here is how Discovery Institute's annotated list of peer-reviewed publications summarizes the essay that Luskin discusses in the podcast above:

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

In this peer-reviewed paper, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh argues that two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system -- exhibit “irreducible complexity.” The paper describes these systems using the exact sort of definitions that Michael Behe uses to describe irreducible complexity: FULL POST

DNA stores digital biological code. Where does your information come from?

On April 19 National Geographic News summarized a lengthy technical article related to life’s origin that was to appear in the journal Science the next day. NG News began its story with these words:

Step aside, DNA—new synthetic compounds called XNAs can also store and copy genetic information, a new study says. And, in a "big advancement," these artificial compounds can also be made to evolve in the lab, according to study co-author John Chaput of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University.

Nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA are composed of four bases—A, G, C, and T. Attached to the bases are sugars and phosphates. … First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds. The team … then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA. This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity. Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube. FULL POST

Programming Language in the World of Technology and Biology: Intelligence at Work

A 14 March 2012 essay in the peer-reviewed journal Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling is noteworthy for adopting the intelligent design approach of identifying and measuring functional (prescriptive) information in living systems. They also recognize that a "programming language" is in use when a ribosome translates the DNA/RNA code into amino acid sequences that fold up in precise ways to make functional proteins.

Although authors D.J. D'Onofrio, D.L. Abel, and D.E. Johnson prefer to use the term “prescriptive information” to refer to the biological information that codes for the building of proteins (and much more), this term is essentially equivalent to the following terms that are better known in the intelligent design community: specified complexity (SC), complex and specified information (CSI), and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC). Casey Luskin explains all of these terms well and how the new D'Onofrio-Abel-Johnson essay operates with the same concept under the term “prescriptive information.” FULL POST

Precambrian strata in a phosphate mine in Guizhou (central China)

Shanan E. Peters and Robert R. Gaines published an article in Nature on 19 April 2012 that offers a new theory for how the Cambrian explosion occurred. But their attempt to diffuse this Darwin-threatening biological bomb is not really that helpful to believers in Darwinian evolution.

The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of more than half of all the animal phyla (basic animal body plans) within a window of 10 million years (or less) in the early part of the Cambrian period of earth history--a period that began 542 million years ago when Earth was largely covered with a vast ocean. This sudden appearance of animal body plans occurred without any clear evidence of evolution from earlier life forms. Critics of Darwinism argue that this counts as strong evidence against the universal common descent of all life from one common source. So, what can we say about this latest attempt to avoid the severe evidential challenge to Darwinism that the Cambrian explosion offers? FULL POST