Mind-blowing science... from 1904

The Pixie

Well-known member
Recent article from the Discovery Institute:

“I think it’s really important now to critique Darwinism on its own terms, on scientific terms. The theory is in a state of crisis. It has been for quite a while. Natural selection explains the survival, but not the arrival, of the fittest.” That’s Stephen Meyer’s comment in the newly released trailer for the half-hour documentary...
“This is some pretty mind-blowing stuff,” as host Kutter Callaway says.

What is is curious here is that this "mind-blowing stuff" is over a century old!

From an earlier Discovery Institute article:

In 1904, genetics pioneer Hugo de Vries quipped that "natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

Turns out this guy's mind is blown by something someone said 117 years ago, and is now hopelessly outdated. See here for example, if you want to be more up-to-date with science than the Discovery Institute. I wonder if Callaway's mind will be blow when he learns there is no such thing as phlogiston.

Stephen Meyer gets paid around $250,000 a year by the Discovery Institute, and presumably make additional money from book sales. He is following in the footsteps of Jesus, of course, who also looked to screw the rubes for every penny he could by selling snake oil and flawed ideas.

Oh no, wait. That is antithetical to Jesus, who lived in poverty and urged hos followers to do likewise, and was willing to die for his beliefs.

Oh well, no matter whether Meyer emulates Jesus or is antithetical to Jesus, Christians will still fall for his BS it seems.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
From the one article....At first glance, mutations to salivary enzymes might appear to have little potential for impacting survival. Yet it is precisely the accumulation of slight mutations to saliva that is responsible for snake venom and therefore much of snake evolution.

Ow do, did the slight mutations accumulate to turn the saliva into venom? How did the hollow core fangs in the vipers evolve at the same time?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
So, more that a century ago, people understood that evolution != (a)biogenesis?

Then, why are modern creationists having so much trouble with this?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
No surprised you have not seen these. The religious leaders are understandably keen to play down any verses that suggest they should give up their mansions and fancy cars. People like Meyer are getting very rich off Christian donations; the last thing they want is their donors discovered what Jesus said about that!

See for example:

Luke 14:33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

And:

Luke 12:32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
From the one article....At first glance, mutations to salivary enzymes might appear to have little potential for impacting survival. Yet it is precisely the accumulation of slight mutations to saliva that is responsible for snake venom and therefore much of snake evolution.

Ow do, did the slight mutations accumulate to turn the saliva into venom? How did the hollow core fangs in the vipers evolve at the same time?
There is an excellent article on venom evolution here, that actually addresses the issue of "arrival of the fittest", discussing exactly what genes mutated.

Venoms did not pop out of the void. They started out as genes for other functions. Venom genes are closely related to other genes that carry out entirely different jobs, both in venomous animals and non-venomous ones. Some venoms are closely related to immune system proteins, for example, which attack bacteria invading the body. Others are closely related to digestive enzymes
How does an enzyme end up as a venom? There are a number of ways. A common type of mutation causes DNA to get duplicated. At first, the duplication just means that twice as much of the original protein gets made. But then the extra gene can mutate again without harming the function of the original one. A mutation can, for example, change the signal a gene gets about where it should make its protein. Instead of becoming active in the pancreas, for example, it might start making proteins in the mouth.

Article here on how fangs evolved from teeth with groves:

But it does seem to be an area of on-going research

So while creationists at the Discovery Institute are getting their mind blown by something a guy said 117 years ago, real scientists have done - and are still doing - the legwork to answer that question.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
What is is curious here is that this "mind-blowing stuff" is over a century old!
That neo-darwinism cannot address the information problem nor the bio chemical problem of selection and sequencing amnios then base pairs to write code to encode that information
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
That neo-darwinism cannot address the information problem nor the bio chemical problem of selection and sequencing amnios then base pairs to write code to encode that information
What "information problem"? What are talking about ferengi?

A huge amount of work has been done on evolution that addresses how information becomes encoded in DNA. The very simple answer is variation and selection. This is exactly what evolution does.

So this may have been a problem way back in 1904 when genetics pioneer Hugo de Vries quipped that "natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest", but not in 2021. Not unless you are utterly ignorance of biology from the last century or so.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
What "information problem"? What are talking about ferengi?
Oh wow - you are really ignorant of simple rudimentary cellular biology - but I am always ready to teach - the information contained in DNA - how it was created originally and how nature creates the large infusion of new genetic information needed for new body plans.
A huge amount of work has been done on evolution that addresses how information becomes encoded in DNA. The very simple answer is variation and selection. This is exactly what evolution does.
Your evidence is? Start with how nature did the original section and sequencing entropy work and where the information came from in the first place.
 

rossum

Well-known member
the information contained in DNA - how it was created originally and how nature creates the large infusion of new genetic information needed for new body plans.
It was not "created", it was copied. Evolution is a process which copies information from the environment into the DNA of organisms in that environment.

We have plenty of evidence for the existence of the environment and the information it contains. You have not shown us any evidence for your alleged creator. Or are you talking about Monsanto, who have added new information to the DNA of some of their products?
 

rossum

Well-known member
But where did the ORIGINAL information come from?
An excellent question. Where did the ORIGINAL information in your designer come from? Anything complex enough to design a living cell must itself contain information. Where did that information in the designer come from?
 

ferengi

Well-known member
An excellent question.
Which you avoid of course.
Where did the ORIGINAL information in your designer come from?
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove the designer is a biological entity.
Anything complex enough to design a living cell must itself contain information.
Your evidence is?

Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information come from?
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Stephen Meyer gets paid around $250,000 a year by the Discovery Institute, and presumably make additional money from book sales. He is following in the footsteps of Jesus, of course, who also looked to screw the rubes for every penny he could by selling snake oil and flawed ideas.
Your evidence is? So there is not a designer and nature caused life to begin?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove the designer is a biological entity.
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove that non-biological entities are all zero information.

Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information come from?
Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information in the designer come from?
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove that non-biological entities are all zero information.
Straw man - prove I said that.
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove the designer is a biological entity.
Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information come from?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Straw man - prove I said that.
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove the designer is a biological entity.
Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information come from?
Straw man - prove I said that.
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove the designer is a not a biological entity.
Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information in the designer come from?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Oh wow - you are really ignorant of simple rudimentary cellular biology - but I am always ready to teach - the information contained in DNA - how it was created originally and how nature creates the large infusion of new genetic information needed for new body plans.
It is called evolution. Small minor variations in the genetic code, with the successful ones getting selected over the less successful ones. Perhaps you have heard about it?

There is no sudden "large infusion of new genetic information", but a slow accrual over time. Changes to body plan that look dramatic are often not so significant below the surface. Here is a recent paper about how similar our arms are to the pectoral fins of teleost fish, for example.

Perhaps you can tell me how much difference there is in the information there? How big is the "large infusion of new genetic information" that was required to change a fin to an arm? No? Odd that. Intelligent design is big on talk when it comes to information, but slow to actually do the work.

And this really brings us back to the point in the other thread that you shied away from - that intelligent design claims the information in DNA corresponds to the length of the DNA. Do you think that that is true? If not, then where do you get this claim of a "large infusion of new genetic information" from?
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Straw man
I know you posted that - I am asking you to prove your claim.
Avoiding the question - shifting the burden - loaded question- prove the designer is a not a biological entity.
Projection
Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information in the designer come from?
Now back to the question you avoided - But where did the ORIGINAL information in the designer come from?
 
Top