I thought you might be interested in his latest attempt to discredit evolution. His post is at: An Essential Prediction of Darwinian Theory Is Falsified by Information Degradation.
He begins by claiming that "Darwinian Theory" (what ever that is) makes an essential prediction. It predicts that information must increase over time.
In the neo-Darwinian scenario for the origin and diversity of life, the digital functional information for life would have had to begin at zero, increase over time to eventually encode the first simple life form, and continue to increase via natural processes to encode the digital information for the full diversity of life.Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. Evolutionary theory is about the mechanisms of evolution, speciation etc. It explains the history of life but it doesn't make any predictions about how that history should unfold. Think of it this way. Imagine that we discovered primitive living cells on another planet and that they were capable of evolving. Evolutionary theory cannot predict whether that life will survive or go extinct and it certainly can't predict whether it will eventually produce maple trees or mosquitoes. The history of life on Earth clearly began with some very simple cells and it's just as clear that some modern species are very complex. We can understand how that happened but evolutionary theory did not predict that more complex organisms had to arise over time.
An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.
Contrast this with the Intelligent Design version of creationism. Apparently its followers understand the mind of the "intelligent designer" because they are prepared to make predictions about what he/she/it/them intended. Here's how Kirk Durston describes it ...
Interestingly, a prediction of intelligent design science is quite the opposite. Since information always degrades over time for any storage media and replication system, intelligent design science postulates that the digital information of life was initially downloaded into the genomes of life. It predicts that, on average, genetic information is steadily being corrupted by natural processes. The beauty of these two mutually incompatible predictions in science is that the falsification of one entails verification of the other. So which prediction does science falsify, and which does science verify?If I understand this correctly, the Intelligent Design Creationists all agree that all the information required to make complex organisms was written into the genome at some time in the past (3.5 billion years ago according to many ID proponents). Since that time, the intelligent designer has allowed that information to steadily degrade so that eventually all species will become extinct. (I don't know how Durston came to understand the mind of the gods.)
What does the evidence show? Here's what Kirk Durston says,
This is the first problem for neo-Darwinian theory. Mutations produce random changes in the digital information of life. It is generally agreed that the rate of deleterious mutations is much greater than the rate of beneficial mutations. My own work with 35 protein families suggests that the rate of destruction is, at minimum, 8 times the rate of neutral or beneficial mutations.Isn't that interesting? Intelligent Design Creationists believe that over the past 3.5 billion years the genetic information in simple bacteria has been steadily degrading at a rate 8 times the rate of beneficial mutations.
Simply put, the digital information of life is being destroyed much faster than it can be repaired or improved. New functions may evolve, but the overall loss of functional information in other areas of the genome will, on average, be significantly greater. The net result is that the digital information of life is running down.
Aside from the fact that Durston's statement is ridiculous, it says something very weird about the intelligent designer that these creationists believe in. Those
We continue to discover more examples of DNA loss, suggesting that the biological world is slowly running down. Microevolution is good at fine-tuning existing forms within their information limits and occasionally getting something right, but the steady accumulation of deleterious mutations on the larger scale suggests that mutation-driven evolution is actually destroying biological life, not creating it.This is the best they've got? Are you still wondering why I call them IDiots?
This is hardly a surprise, as every other area of science, except for evolutionary biology, grants that natural processes degrade information, regardless of the storage media and copying process. For neo-Darwinian macroevolution to work, it requires something that is in flat-out contradiction to the real world.