MIRROR: Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover

[adkinsjr]

@umborriquitocomotu

No, they've responded, but not with the evidence asked for. They just regurgitated the same old "homology does not imply relatedness" canard. Same old system of denial...

[benthemiester]

I was speaking specifically of the in vitro selection process using pool RNA that Szostac uses in his work. I think the bigger question concerning the RNA world is the instability of RNA and difficulties with storing large & complex amounts of information which it would need to store if we are to believe that RNA could evolve into the DNA protein based life that we see today. Again, if you have done work on this field and have been able to answer some of these questions please cite your work.

[benthemiester]

Correction....... I meant to say it is not supported by the NCSE and Eugenie Scott although there are also some members of the Nas that don't support it either for the reasons previously mentioned. The fact that even Massimo Pigliucci is calling for a relaxation of the assumptions made by the current Darwinian synthesis and is in favor of a new extended synth based on an epigenetic model is big news in my opinion.

[benthemiester]

"That does not make him an expert on biology, medicine, or evolution"

There is no such thing as an expert in these fields because they encompass to much. Everybody has there own niche. No one is smart enough to understand all there is in biology & genetics, especial right now. The new epigenetic paradigm is forcing people to literally go back to the drawing board & rethink much of everything we thought we knew. More and more are starting to admit the staggering complexity & misunderstandings.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

Fine. I amend my statement to, "That does not make him an expert in any subfield of biology, medicine, or evolution." The point is the same.

I'm not sure you really get the big picture of gene regulation and where epigenetics fits in, but I think you might be overstating its importance in modern biology. The field's been around since 1942, so it's not exactly the latest and greatest new idea in biology. Important, yes, but not a revolution.

[benthemiester]

"He directs the strategic pro-creation activities of the DI" Please back up your claim, are u saying the DI has a pro creationist department or are you just making this stuff up. I have to say you sounded fairly intelligent up until that last statement. I've spoken to many of these people and I have never heard of a pro creationist department or of them trying to promote creationism. Like thunderfoot, this demonstrates a profound ignorance in Intelligent design. Others get it, but some don't.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

According to the leaked Wedge Document, the purpose of the the "Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture" is to "replace it [materialism] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." and "We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith"

Have you read this document? It dispels any pretense of secularism. It's "apologetics". Their word!

[benthemiester]

What I find interesting is that with all this supposed research that is claimed, and all the stones that are thrown, you would think someone would at least understand the Stephen C Meyers is not the president of the Discovery institute. This should be a clue right off the bat, especially with such a self described high profile and popular video. I think this is a true indication of the limited understanding of the DI by its critics. Even Sony Corleone took the time to understand his enemies.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

No, that was Thunderf00t's mistake. Stephen C Meyers is a Senior Fellow and the VP/Director of the Center for Science and Culture, the creationist advocacy arm of the DI. In practical terms, he directs the strategic pro-creation activities of the DI.

There was some talk last year that he would be taking over the reigns from Bruce Chapman.

Have you noticed how he is often referred to as a "scientist" despite being a philosopher? And he never corrects people...

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance If you mirrored his video then it becomes your mistake also. If you excepted it enough to post it on your channel then don't back peddle now. Your limited view of the nature world has nothing to do with science. You may have gotten this idea from watching scary movies as a kid but there is no such thing as the supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about the appearance of design that even Dawkins admits to. ID theorist simply don't see this as illusory as Dawkins does.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

I apologize for the mistake. Stephen Meyer is DIRECTOR of the CSC, not the President of the DI.

Again, "excepted" is not correct in this usage, "accepted" is.

If we allow for natural forces to be designers, then, by all means, I am in favor of Natural Design. It's the top-down idea that gets them into trouble.

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance He has a degree in physics and earth science and has worked as a geophysicist. He is also philosopher as well. Why would you have a problem with that? If someone has a degree in science and has done scientific work, why should someone be in error calling him a scientist. What is your point? Please cite who has misrepresented his scientific credentials. I have to tell you, each thread seems to be getting more and more out there.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

It takes more than a basic technical degree to be a scientist. One must be engaged in the process of science, a part of the scientific community, and contributing new knowledge to a scientific field.

But I will grant that he worked as an oilfield geologist in 1984, 26 years ago. That does not make him an expert on biology, medicine, or evolution. If he would be a bit clearer, it might dispel any illusions that he more than a layperson with regards to biology.

[Vamavid]

DoesItAddUp101 has made history with his video "Evidence against evolution -The HAR-1 Gene"! He's found it!

[C0nc0rdance]

Not at all. As you will see from his video, HAR-1 is strongly homologous to chimp, mouse, and even chicken sequence. The differences are 18 out of 157. That's 89% homologous to our closest relative, chimps. And this is one of the most extreme examples of change.

What makes HAR-1 interesting is that it represents the possible action of biased gene conversion, a change mechanism that is not strongly selected. It may tell us something about how events occurred in human-chimp divergence.

[Vamavid]

I agree (I was being sarcastic).

I have been following your robust rebuttal of his video "Evidence against common ancestry" with keen interest. Even though I occasionally get left behind, I did learn a few things about genetics.

His trick always involves a leap of faith hidden in the smoke screen of minutiae, gene names and papers (that don't back his position btw), not unlike his "My videos dealing with religion".

[C0nc0rdance]

He seems to be a pretty smart guy, but he's chosen his conclusion in advance, and has gone searching for supporting facts. He's filtered through a lot of the info, selective acceptance.

[Vamavid]

You hit the nail smack on the head.  He has chosen his conclusion in advance.

[Vamavid]

Incidentally why is that there was a high mutation rate in humans but not in chimps? What IS currently known?

[C0nc0rdance]

Total mutation rates are the same. The HAR-1 region appears to be the result of a series of recombination events, which is what he is talking about with the BGC. It may or may not change the expression of a key gene in brain development.

There's some interest in why these regions evolved so rapidly. By what mechanism were the changes fixed in the population? Some speculation surrounds population bottlenecks, where the human species was less than 2000 individuals. Look up Toba bottleneck.

[Vamavid]

Thanks.

[COMALiteJ]

Humans eat more processed mutagens. ;-)

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

so he just found one rapidly evolving gene and claimed victory that it didn't evolve?

Why would something homogenizing like gene conversion be considered the reason for rapid changes?

how common are "accelerated regions" when comparing one taxa to others in the same clade like that?

[KristoffDoe]

Only animal or plant? No fungi allowed? :O

(Just kidding, I'm not IDiot od cre(a)ti(o)n(ist)... :] )

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

The word "artifact" shares a root with "artificial"

See how that works? You must show artificiality.

[ooglebydoogleby]

i dont understand the science enough but i do understand the nature of the chalenge and there will be no genuine takers on this one and we all know why.

[ConradW]

I don't know anything about genetics, but I am going put forward a few guesses, just to make sure that at least SOME genes are tested. Ob gene (related to obesity in mice) fa gene (related to obesity in rats) 5-HTTR Sevenless 7q22 (I know that's a locus, but I don't know the name of the gene(s) found there) PAH (results in phenylketonuria) MRXS5 FMR1 now, plants: IPK1 AtJ3 Like I said, these are all guesses. I'm pretty sure they are all genes though. happy hunting

[C0nc0rdance]

I know I answered these. Did you post the same list on the Thunderf00t video?

All of them were highly conserved, and your plant genes are also found in humans.

The least conserved gene was Ob, which apparently is only in Eutherians, I believe.

I'll probably collate all the proposed genes into a video sometime in June. I'm going to get out ClustalX to draw some phylogenetic trees.

[ConradW]

Yes, I did. But I didn't know which version of the video you wanted replies to go to.

Thanks for these. I really liked how the plant genes really weren't specific to plants at all. I think there's something telling about the fact that there is so much in concordance between us and all other life, including plants.

The response you'll get from a lot of fundies will be "of course they have so much in common only one designer!" to which I would have to say 'kinda lazy for an all powerful being'

[C0nc0rdance]

Wait until I get out Clustal and create phylogenetic trees. Then I promise you will be blown away with how this data is used.

[jasondemon]

This is a most excellent proposition but, (and I haven't read too too many comments) I am perplexed as to why one of the ID lemmings hasn't pointed to one of their pillar fallacies and said, "you can't prove there isn't one". At least I haven't seen it yet...

[JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF]

concord, I see how this works. You're in bed with the wrong dude, thunderbutt is very gullible and stupid. Anyways, this is called a strawman. What if aliens planted the genes? This is a "god intervention in present day evolution" point your making here right? I'm talking about an original template laid here on earth and then they left the planet.

[JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF]

weak concord, weak. Try all the genes were ID'd, how about that?

[C0nc0rdance]

The point of the vid was which genes are IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX structure-compatible.

Irreducibly complex structures can not be reduced. They have no prior form or usage. This is an Intelligent Design concept, developed to overcome the unfalsifiable objection. Well, let's test it. What genes could be part of an irreducibly complex structure? What genes don't show prior form or function?

That's all I'm asking, and every ID proponent so far is missing it.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Exactly correct. What does it mean to say that something is IC, if it could have evolved? OF COURSE, we can always fall back and "explain" it by magic, but what value does a magical "explanation" add if have a perfectly good explanation that doesn't require magic?

[RandomChance7]

jworkerbee...

I'm not sure you understand my main point. We can have a discussion about the fossil record; I'm happy to do that.

Nor does PZ Meyer seem to grasp the main point. The main point is not evolution; it is the nature of the process of life.

And that main point is that agency - only agency - and definitely not nature - is the only tenable explanation based on the evidence.

There are 3 known causes for phenomena, and only agency(of the 3)can account for life as we know it

[rabbaj]

"And that main point is that agency - only agency - and definitely not nature - is the only tenable explanation based on the evidence."

1). Where is the evidence of agency of which you speak? 2). Where is it published?

3). What have we learned about it?

4). What tests have we done to falsify this agency?

Since you speak of "agency" and "nature" separately, then I suppose you believe this agency acts outside of nature (or apart from nature)? This seems to be contrary to scientific discovery.

[RandomChance7]

Agency behaves differently than nature. Maybe it is outside of nature, maybe it isn't. That's not the point. The point is that the properties of agency are unique and the properties of nature are distinct and that's why it is often possible to distinguish which is at play. Agency is capable of information generation, top down design, and symbolic representation which nature is not capable of. All of these qualities are observed at the molecular level. Therefore, only design suffices

[rabbaj]

Sorry, but that does not compute. You say:

"Maybe it is outside of nature, maybe it isn't. That's not the point.".

Then you go on to say:

"Agency is capable of information generation, top down design, and symbolic representation which nature is not capable of. All of these qualities are observed at the molecular level."

How do you know that if it's outside nature?!?! You couldn't, could you? So, it must be in nature. Therefore, how do you distinguish between the two, scientifically?

[Looking4Coffee]

This is a fallacy. For example, prior to the invention of the wheel, something I think we can all agree had to start somewhere, any wheel like natural formation would not be evidence of design correct?

Yet, did the discovery and creation of a wheel equate to belief in a designer because there are natural ring or wheel like formations?

If this is obviously not true, why is it true on the cutting edge of biology when we don't have all the answers yet?

[RandomChance7]

Is archaeology science or is it not? Archaeology is entirely rooted in our confidence to reliably detect the activity of agents.

By the way, I find it very telling that those of us who support ID constantly engage in an honest effort to have a reasonable discussion while our opponents merely "thumbs down" us to the point that they are able to effectively avoid any substantive discussion!

Makes you wonder who really has science on their side, eh?

[Looking4Coffee]

Archeology is the study of man made objects. Do these objects reproduce on their own? Do they mutate on their own? Does their genetic information change over time?

How about ID predict something. How can you tell a designed from non designed living organism? Should be pretty simple.

Also, might be a good idea if it's science, to submit to peer review once in a while instead of trying to get your ideas taught in schools through legislation.

I know who has science on their side.

[RandomChance7]

1)Archaeology is the study of objects that are clearly the product of deliberate agents. Period.

2) ID predicted long ago that so-called "junk" dna does in fact have a function. This is in direct opposition to the predictions of unguided evolution. There is much much more that cannot fit in a 500 character format

3) The body of peer reviewed ID literature continues to grow.

Honestly, let's just have a conversation. I'd love it! What do you say?

[Looking4Coffee]

RandomChance7:

From webster's dictionary

"Archaeology: the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities" OF HUMAN LIFE AND ACTIVITES. Now please stop trying to change the definitions of words.

2) Really? Where did ID predict this? What paper, what year, can you cite it?

3) ID does not submit anything for peer review. Can you give me one example of an ID article appearing in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

Archaeology is based on detecting signs of artificiality, that something was fabricated. The signs that an arrow head was fashioned include chipping marks on the arrow, and obsidian flecks found near ancient campfires. We can see the process of flint knapping happen today, there was a project where they told undergrads to try to make stone tools and then analyzed the results.This is what science is

Yet ID can't show marks were genes were modified in any way.

No evidence= no conclusion

[amberview30]

I don't think they will understand your request.

[RandomChance7]

Wow PZ! May 15 is the date that your biased language loaded challenge is issued? 2009, right? It's been more than 50 years since the discovery of DNA and we're still waiting for the evidence that naturalistic processes are capable of creating, translating and implementing information protocols. That's a half century of crickets.

ID does not deny evolution; it only claims that life is a the result of agency. All the evidence points to agency and rules out natural processes.

Try again.

[jworkerbee]

RandomChoice7,

Wrong. The pattern seen into DNA recapitulates the overall pattern seen from the fossils...No major tree from fossils that was well supported by fossils is contradicted. It adds to, but does not subtract from fossil records. Aside from the overall pattern of diversification, it has also helped shed much additional light on detailed mechanisms that helped create diversification. This has made the theory, the fact, and the process of evolution much much stronger, not weaker.

[VoteNixon2008]

How so? What is you evidence and what sort of evidence could possibly contradict your theory if it was found?

please! put forth your argument and evidence

[TheFallibleFiend]

Not crickets chirping. Lots of advances, including the probable "corner piece" published in the most recent issue of Nature. It's correct to say that we don't know everything. It's absurd to say we don't know anything. There is no scientific reason to think that life is only the result of 'agency.'

[JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF]

It's absurd to discount an agency which you do.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"It's absurd to discount an agency which you do. "

I don't discount "agency." To the extent that "agency" means "magic<" it is beyond the scope of science. To the extent that it refers to entities in the physical universe, it is hypothetically capable of being studied by science; however, there's no scientific reason at this point to invoke agency.

[JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF]

I've been waiting patiently for a day for you answer by my computer I expect something more

[RandomChance7]

refresh my memory...

Where did I say that we don't know anything?

Perhaps you inferred that I accused you of not knowing anything. While I didn't do that, I still await your defense against such an accusation

[TheFallibleFiend]

"It's been more than 50 years since the discovery of DNA and we're still waiting for the evidence that naturalistic processes are capable of creating, translating and implementing information protocols."

You imply there has been no evidence. That is false. It's not anywhere near complete, but people weren't even looking for how information can increase 150 years ago. We didn't have a working definition of information until late 40s and we still don't know how applicable it is to biology.

[TheFallibleFiend]

And, yes, there has been some success on how information can increase - Tom Schneider. Of course creationists deny his research is correct - they deny, without refuting. Tom's using shannon information.

The creationists talk about information in non-specific terms - which explains why David Wolpert - a *real* genius in information theory - referred to Dembski's math as having been written in "Jell-o."

[william339]

H2O2

[william339]

h20

[jgoemat]

If you are in Nebraska and look out in any direction, the logical inference would be that the Earth is flat. What other evidence to they have that life was designed by an intelligent agent other than their 'logical inference'?

[HumanStrategy]

Hey man, this is serious.

I once fell off Earth when walking around in Nebraska. It sucked.^^

[Ofrolvi]

well that is just dumb saint