MIRROR: Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover
If people like the Discovery Institute want to put forward hypotheses such as intelligent design as an origin for the information in DNA, then that’s fine, but if they want it to be taken seriously, they must provide some evidence to support it. The user C0nc0rdance has provided exactly such a method for them to do this. Its simple, find a gene without an evolutionary heritage. The genomes of about 180 life forms have been sequenced containing maybe a million genes, and thus far the Discovery Institute has shown saintly resistance to look for a single gene that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin. If you are an Intelligent Design Proponenist and think this would be an excellent method for presenting evidence to support ID, then arguably your best course of action would be to contact the Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org ) at info@discovery.org and suggest that the largest pro-intelligent design organisation actually looks for evidence to support their hypothesis. The core of this video was made by user C0nc0rdance www.youtube.com He makes excellent videos on science and defending science against dis-information. Personally I think the Discovery Institute will do their best to ignore this, after all they must have thought of this before, they just do not want to invalidate their hypothesis by trying.
Best DNA Test Related Blogs
Tags: and, arena, C0nc0rdance, Christian, Christianity, controversy, creation, design, discovery, disinformation, dna, evolution, GENES, genome, hypothesis, information, Institute, intelligent, meyer, nc, peer, president, proteins, rdance, religion, review, RNA, science, steven, strengths, teach, test, testing, the, theory, thunderf00t, weaknesses
December 1st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Only animal or plant? No fungi allowed? :O
(Just kidding, I’m not IDiot od cre(a)ti(o)n(ist)… :] )
December 16th, 2009 at 6:05 am
DoesItAddUp101 has made history with his video “Evidence against evolution -The HAR-1 Gene”! He’s found it!
December 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
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.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
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”.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
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.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
You hit the nail smack on the head. He has chosen his conclusion in advance.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Incidentally why is that there was a high mutation rate in humans but not in chimps? What IS currently known?
December 17th, 2009 at 1:41 am
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.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Thanks.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Humans eat more processed mutagens.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:07 am
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?
July 21st, 2010 at 5:29 pm
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.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:24 pm
@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…
July 21st, 2010 at 7:44 pm
@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.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:54 pm
“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.
July 21st, 2010 at 8:48 pm
@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.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:36 pm
@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.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
@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!
July 21st, 2010 at 9:55 pm
@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.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:01 pm
“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.
July 22nd, 2010 at 3:50 am
@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.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 am
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.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
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.
December 13th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
@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…
July 13th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
@adkinsjr
“homology does not imply relatedness” – I guess that’s just another example of the unfalsifiable nature of ID. At least this time they were willing to admit it.
And here you were offering an intellectual olive branch.