
You should probably watch this video to get some idea about how the creationist mind works.
[Hat Tip: Effect Measure]

[Hat Tip: Effect Measure]

Monado at Science Notes points us to a Visual Library set up by Access Excellence at the National Health Museum [Graphics Library resources online]. Here's a description of Access Excellence.Access Excellence, launched in 1993, is a national educational program that provides health, biology and life science teachers access to their colleagues, scientists, and critical sources of new scientific information via the World Wide Web. The program was originally developed and launched by Genentech Inc., and in 1999 joined the National Health Museum, a non-profit organization founded by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as a national center for health education. Access Excellence will form the core of the educational component of the National Health Museum Website that is currently under development.This is an admirable goal. The web is full of garbage and it would be nice to collect all the good stuff in one site so that teachers and students could use it. I thought I'd check it out to see how "excellent" it is.


Prime Minister Harper is attending the Commonwealth Summit in Kampala, Uganda. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Commonwealth of Nations, it represents 53 nations that were formerly part of the British Empire [Commonwealth of Nations].[Hat Tip: Brian Larnder at Primordial Blog (Stephen Harper Embarrasses Canada Again)]
[Photo Credit: cbcnews]

The latest results from today's election in Australia point to a defeat for the current Prime Minister, John Howard [Labor sweeps to victory in Australia election]. Not only will the Liberal-National Party coalition lose the election but it looks like Howard will lose his own seat in Parliament. [Photo Credit: Australian flag - Job Search: John Howard - Wikipedia]
Here's an online interview with Kirk Durston on canadianchristianity.com for those who want to know more about his views on Intelligent Design Creationism [Evolution under fire? -- Part 1]. By all accounts Kirk seems to be a Young Earth Creationist in the sense that he prefers the literal interpretation of the Bible until it has been proven wrong.I have been doing a great deal of work in ID over the past few years -- and have given presentations of my work in universities, both in Canada and the USA, that are well attended by both students and faculty. I have been very surprised by the fact that no significant objections to the evidence I present are being raised in these venues. I never bash Darwinism, I simply show them the positive evidence for ID -- and it goes over very well indeed.I'm surprised that he has never heard any significant objections to the evidence he presents in his talk. I didn't have any trouble recognizing several lies and distortions and I wasn't the only one on Tuesday night.
I am currently working on a paper dealing with functional information, under the guidance of a professor in bioinformatics who wants to see my work published. It will be very low-key, mentioning nothing about ID, yet laying the groundwork for some major advances in this field -- if it is, by some miracle, accepted for publication.
Kirk Durston has been participating in the discussion on the thread Kirk Durston's Proof of God. He's been having a bit of difficulty keeping up with the scientific criticisms of his proposed proof of the existence of I thank Larry for extending the opportunity to post a method to test for whether ID is highly probable or not (the way I phrased it in my lecture). I've been mulling this over even before Larry posted the invite. I have reservations about doing it in this particular forum, primarily because the numbers that would be involved are too few to justify the time and, secondly, I would prefer a live lecture where the back and forth dialogue would be greatly enhanced. I've thought that, perhaps, this could be done at the U of T over a 2 hour period. Larry could book a room and chair the event. I could present my proposal (as I repeatedly referred to it in my lecture) of a method to test for ID. I would sincerely hope that Larry et al would be able to set aside the usual hostility and personal attacks and, instead, run a collegial, honest event. As I repeatedly stressed in my lecture this past week, I am NOT claiming to have a 'proof' for ID. Rather, I am proposing a scientific method to test for it that is a work in progress. When this could take place is another question. Certainly not this semester. I am currently swamped with getting the next phase of my research up and running, and a couple of papers in progress. I cannot even afford the time o respond to these posts and will likely have to bow out today. My suggestion would be sometime in 2008, preferably after the winter semester, say, late April or May.I'm happy to oblige and I've booked a room for either Tuesday April 22nd or Tuesday April 28th. I invite Kirk Durston to come and present his evidence that protein folding studies indicate the presence of an intelligent designer.
[Photo Credit: The Figure is from my textbook, Horton et al. (2006) p. 110. It's taken from the work of my departmental colleague Hue Sun Chan, one of the world's leading experts on the theoretical aspects of protein folding.]
I throw in my two cents' worth:Many people have said this before but we need to keep hammering away at this point [see Kirk Durston's Proof of God]. There's no logic to Intelligent Design Creationism other than discrediting evolution on the assumption that God is the only other option.
There is indeed a huge, huge logical fallacy at the base of Dembski's argument. It's the assumption that if you pick enough holes in evolution to let the air out, "God did it" is the only remaining conclusion. That's known as a false dichotomy.
In reality, there are a lot more than two choices. If the received explanation of evolution were not true, it would be back to the drawing board for everyone. If it isn't random mutation plus natural selection plus sexual selection plus genetic drift, then perhaps it's inheritance of acquired characteristics plus natural selection plus sexual selection plus genetic drift. There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that unnatural causes are needed.
The result of pushing the false dichotomy is that ID proponents are ready to use every rhetorical trick in the book, misrepresent evolution, continue to quote falsified "facts," and invent mathematical proofs based on strained assumptions that evolution can't occur without angels pushing the molecules. Dembski's arguments have been falsified again and again. Mutation produces new information. Mutation can produce improvements. Mutation can double the genetic material and then modify it (in spite of the "if I copied this paper I haven't doubled my knowledge" rhetoric). Natural selection is neither directed by God nor random at a particular time and place. It is probabilistic, however. When Dembski claims that something is impossible and actual researchers explain step by step how that could happen, his argument is demolished. The fact that our evidence is always "pathetic" and his evidence is non-existent tells you who has the logic on their side and who is blowing smoke.
November 13, 2006
February 28, 2007
March 14, 2007
April 11, 2007
May 9, 2007
June 20, 2007
July 25, 2007
August 29, 2007
September 26, 2007
October 31, 2007
November 14, 2007
December 12, 2007
February 6, 2008
March 19, 2008
May 7, 2008
June 18, 2008
July 16, 2008
August 6, 2008
September 10, 2008
September 25, 2008
October 16, 2008
November 13, 2008
December 3, 2008
December 17, 2008
January 29, 2009
February 20, 2009
March 11, 2009
April 8, 2009
April 23, 2009
It's just another small step towards understanding development and regulation. We've been expecting it for months [Reprogramming Somatic Cells].
The latest version of the Tangled Bank has been posted on from Archaea to Zeaxanthol [Tangled Bank #93].Ahoy me mateys and welcome to the 93rd edition of the Tangled Bank, humbly hosted by yours truly. For those of you returning to from Archaea to Zeaxanthol, welcome back. For those new to my blog, let me give you a quick introduction.
At one point in his talk last night Kirk Durston mentioned the bacterial flagella. He acknowledged that the "Darwinists" have proposed an evolutionary pathway from a Type III secretory structure to flagella. Mira, A., Ochman, H. and Moran N.A. (2000) Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. Trends Genet. 17:589-96. [PubMed]I asked Durston what would happen if I called Nancy Moran (no relation, that's her above) and asked her whether she agreed that primitive bacteria were complex and all modern bacterial lineages are losing information. He affirmed that she would and that's what modern evolutionary biologists are saying. There are other papers that say the same thing. He accused me of not being aware of them.
Although bacteria increase their DNA content through horizontal transfer and gene duplication, their genomes remain small and, in particular, lack nonfunctional sequences. This pattern is most readily explained by a pervasive bias towards higher numbers of deletions than insertions. When selection is not strong enough to maintain them, genes are lost in large deletions or inactivated and subsequently eroded. Gene inactivation and loss are particularly apparent in obligate parasites and symbionts, in which dramatic reductions in genome size can result not from selection to lose DNA, but from decreased selection to maintain gene functionality. Here we discuss the evidence showing that deletional bias is a major force that shapes bacterial genomes.I think it's pretty obvious from the abstract that they're discussing a particular problem in bacterial evolution; namely selection for small compact genomes. This point is clear in the paper as well.