Information theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology. As a result, it should be no surprise that something like "˜intelligent design' would eventually emerge. That is, as the models and metaphors began to generate a track record of success, sooner or later teleologists would take note and begin to question whether the success was indebted to a deeper reality.

Anyway, there is a little piece of historical trivia that helps us see how easy it would be to transition from the application of information theory to biology to something like intelligent design.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here is a brief snippet where anthropologist Melvin Konner fisks Richard Dawkins over the notion that religion is child abuse. The clip also shows Dawkins complaining about Konner and demanding an apology. The funny thing is that it becomes clear Dawkins wasn't paying attention to Konner. He accuses Konner of accusing him of indoctrinating his daughter, yet Konner said no such thing (replay the video and check for yourself). Oops, there is a lesson in this.

Don't misrepresent someone when the camera is running.

I have long noted that when most ID critics come to the table, they bring their stereotypes where all ID proponents are either stupid, deceptive, or mentally ill. This stereotype would then often greatly influence the debates, where the critic would go fishing for some tidbit that would serve to reinforce the stereotype (confirmation bias). But with the dawning of the post-wedge world, it has become more clear to me that there are different types of ID critics. That being realized, I think it is more fair to say that this stereotype about IDers is relied upon mostly by type C critics (the hardcore, anti-religious evangelical atheists). This is because the type C critics have the exact same stereotype about all religious people and in their minds, ID = God belief.

So what's with the title of this blog? Back in the pre-Dover days, when I was posting on ARN a lot, there was one critic who consistently objected when I commented on the critics and their stereotypes and that person was Jack Krebs. Looking back, it is now clear to me that Jack was a type A critic and was most likely speaking about himself with sincerity. So if Jack is out there and reading, I offer my sincere apologies for doubting you and dismissing you at the time.

From here:

What they found was that the "more advanced" species had faster overall rates of evolution. So, on average, the genes from humans and chimpanzees changed faster than genes from monkeys, which changed faster than those from mice.

They explained the trend as a correlate of smaller population size in the more advanced species. Species with smaller population size can more easily escape the harsh scrutiny of natural selection.

When they compared the pace of evolution among genes expressed in the brain, however, the order was reversed. When calibrated against the genomic average, brain genes in humans evolved more slowly than in other primates, which were slower than mice.

"We would expect positive selection to work most effectively on tissue-specific genes, where there would be fewer conflicting requirements," says Wu. "For example, genes expressed only in male reproductive tissues have evolved very rapidly."

Brains, however, "are intriguing in this respect," Wu says. Genes that are expressed only in the brain evolved more slowly than those that are expressed in the brain as well as other tissues, and those genes evolved more slowly than genes expressed throughout the rest of the organism.

The authors attribute the slowdown to mounting complexity of interactions within the brain. "We know that proteins with more interacting partners evolve more slowly," Wu said. "Mutations that disrupt existing interactions aren't tolerated."

Over at his official website, Richard Dawkins praises his #1 Fan, PZ Myers.

Congratulations to P Z Myers on this brilliant piece of satire. It applies not just to Allen Orr's review in NYRB, but to all those many reviews of TGD that complain of my lack of reading in theology. My own stock reply ("How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?") is far less witty.

Richard

The "brilliant piece of satire" is Myers' "The Courtier's Reply."

Read the rest of this entry »

I continue to explore the hypothesis of Common Design at The Design Matrix site. This is a topic that is not likely to please people on either side the aisle. Most non-teleologists and critics won't like it because they don't like any attempt to treat a teleological perspective as something other than dangerous nonsense. Most creationists won't like it because my initial attempt to better flesh out this type of hypothesis means that you can't use it to explain any similarity.

As we continue our journey into the post-wedge world, I think the most remarkable thing about 2006 is that this was the year many critics of ID donned their steel-toed boots and decided to get all righteous. Their new solution, you see, is to declare war on all religion and begin a quest to once and for all rid the world of the religious scourge. These critics not only attacked scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, but even lashed out at agnostics and fellow atheists whose opposition to religion wasn't pure enough.

The Leader and Face of the newly hatched Anti-Religion Movement is the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins. Yet, just as all his neo-Enlightenment started to unfold, he performed a trick to mesmorize his fans, a feat that will be talked about for years to come.
Read the rest of this entry »

Don't let the expression fool you, he loved it.

Enjoy