Recycling bad arguments: ENV on the origin of life

During the past few days, Dr. Brian Miller (whose Ph.D. is in physics) has written a series of articles on the origin of life over at Evolution News and Views:

Thermodynamics of the Origin of Life (June 19, 2017)
The Origin of Life, Self-Organization, and Information (June 20, 2017)
Free Energy and the Origin of Life: Natural Engines to the Rescue (June 22, 2017)
Origin of Life and Information — Some Common Myths (June 26, 2017)

Dr. Miller’s aim is to convince his readers that intelligent agency was required to coordinate the steps leading to the origin of life. I think his conclusion may very well be correct, but that doesn’t make his arguments correct. In this post, I plan to subject Dr. Miller’s arguments to scientific scrutiny, in order to determine whether Dr. Miller has made a strong case for Intelligent Design.

While I commend Dr. Miller for his indefatigability, I find it disappointing that his articles recycle several Intelligent Design canards which have been refuted on previous occasions. Dr. Miller also seems to be unaware of recently published online articles which address some of his concerns.
Continue reading

Testing Evolution – Cost

There’s no end to the claims made for and about evolution and what evolution can allegedly accomplish without intelligent guidance. It seems as if Evolution ought to be treated as a god and capitalized. What would a true skeptic do without Evolution?

Far less common are actual metrics for testing evolutionary claims. For example, requests for how to write an actual test for claims about “the power of cumulative selection” are met with silence or scorn.

J.B.S Haldane once wrote:

A satisfactory theory of natural selection must be quantitative. In order to establish the view that natural selection is capable of accounting for the known facts of evolution we must show not only that it can cause a species to change, but that it can cause it to change at a rate which will account for present and past transmutations.

Was Haldane wrong? Did he expect too much from the theory?

Continue reading

Were some “types” of “dinosaurs” like Theropods/T-rex, simply ground birds that adapted to a diverse planet??

I wrote a thread once about Theropods having like anatomy with birds as possibly just a convergence of bone type with physics. So birds did not evolve from dinosaur types like theropods.

I have watched recently youtube docs on T-rex and theropods etc and how they are claimed to be birds.

Once again its ac classification error. First there was no dinosaurs. tHey are just KINDS with some trivial like traits. just as mammals or reptiles are just KINDS of creatures with like traits. no relationship otherwise from a creator ir from evolutionary lineage.

It occured to me as another option that these theropods and T-rex could be simply ground birds.

there was later, post flood or above the k-pg line, 6 and 9 foot moas and elephant birds on islans like New Zealand and madasgaschar, and South America, and elsewhere.

They also were meat eaters, sometimes, and could not fly or even had wings/yet flourished in great sizes.

I think its a very viable option that many KINDS of dinos who have very bird like anatomy were in fact just ground birds. So T-rex, despite its great head/teeth, was possibly just a ground bird that did not roar. I saw a Youtube doc by a Dino guy, who advised the Jurassic park movies, who argues T-Rex etc head shape changed greatly as they grew older.

I suggest its very likely true that some ‘dino” types like the bird bone ones were just birds. Not reptiles. Just adapted to a rough post fall world. Just that simple. Possible also for others to have like anatomy for like needs but I’m leaning towards like anatomy means the same thing.

So the evolution of birds from dinos is not true and based on a classification system more then observation and other options of anatomy origins.

 

A recipe for irreproducible results

Abstract.Recent studies have shown that many results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are not reproducible. This raises the following question: why is it so easy to fool myself into believing that a result is reliable when in fact it is not? Using Brownian motion as a toy model, we show how this can happen if ergodicity is assumed where it is unwarranted. A measured value can appear stable when judged over time,although it is not stable across the ensemble: a different result will be obtained each time the experiment is run.

just for fun.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.07773.pdf

Is Academic Chauvinism As Dangerous As Climate Disruption Denial

The following appeared in my hometown paper today.
I wondered what all of you might have to say about it.
I typed it all out but please remember the title was created by the editor not the letter writer.

Not all ‘science’ is equal

EDITOR: The word science has been bastardized. Its common usage does not distinguish between the hard, soft and historical sciences.

Among the hard sciences, namely physics, chemistry and some aspects of biology, e.g., microbiology, genetics, etc., one relies on experiments that generate mathematical theories that make definite predictions that can be experimentally verified, and thus to theories that can definitely be falsified. The hard sciences deal with only the physical aspect of nature, where purely physical devices can be used to collect relevant data.

Among the soft sciences — social sciences, psychology, etc., — studies are rarely based on mathematical descriptions, and so definite predictions are elusive and pregnant with complicated assumptions. Here one is dealing with humans, and as such with essentially the nonphysical, e.g., issues of the human mind, and the supernatural aspects of nature, owing to humans being spiritual beings.

Finally, among the historical sciences, such as evolutionary theory, climate change, etc., studies are more akin to forensic science, where extant data is used to extrapolate and make tentative predictions. There is no single, well-defined theory that makes predictions that can be experimentally tested, and thus falsify the theory. Here one is certainly dealing with the whole of reality — the physical/nonphysical/supernatural aspect of nature.

It was written by a PhD. of Physics and my personal take is that it represents professional chauvinism.
As a side note the author is also a creationist though I don’t know if an Old or Young Earth creationist.

The Mysteries of Evolution: 2. The Origin of Life and the miserable failure to reassemble Humpty Dumpty

Not much can be written after you watch the two videos above…

It is pretty easy to understand for those who choose to understand that the theory of abiogenesis and the probability of life spontaneously self-assembling is just a science-fiction story to fill the void for those who need to believe in something other than the obvious…

If the living cell can’t be reassembled in a lab, what evidence is there that life spontaneously self-assembled other than in science-fiction stories?

Now, let’s listen to the excuses…

The Evolution of Sex

This has long been an interest of mine. It dates back to the old talk.origins days, prompted by a Creationist taunt with familiar tone – “I’d like to see someone explain the evolution of sex …” (with the implicit “hurr, hurr”). I articulated some thoughts, then was rounded on by the ‘mainstream’ community. I got a flavour of the world through Creationist eyes – an equally familiar tone: some very sharply expressed contempt and an invitation to f*** off back to high school and learn meiosis.

Continue reading