David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).sandy_mcd wrote:It would be nicer if it were someone's cue to bring up evidence for design. I looked up some of the references and do not see the significance of the altered lithium abundance in stars. Perhaps someone can explain?
What is it that distinguishes life from non-living entities? This peer-reviewed paper attempts to answer that question, noting that “Life pursues thousands of biofunctional goals,” whereas “Neither physicodynamics, nor evolution, pursue goals.” Is it possible that unguided evolution and strictly material causes produced life’s purposeful processes? According to this paper, the answer is no. Life’s goals include the use of “symbol systems” to maintain “homeostasis far from equilibrium in the harshest of environments, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, prevention and correction of its own errors, and organization of its components into Sustained Functional Systems.” But the article notes that “the integration and regulation of biochemical pathways and cycles into homeostatic metabolism is programmatically controlled, not just physicodynamically constrained.” This programming is termed “cybernetic”—yet according to the paper cybernetic control “flows only from the nonphysical world of formalism into the physical world through the instantiation of purposeful choices.” Indeed, “Only purposeful choice contingency at bona fide decision nodes can rescue from eventual deterioration the organization and function previously programmed into physicality.” Life thus cannot be the result of unguided material processes—some cause capable of programming “purposeful choices” is necessary.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).
This peer-reviewed paper had its origins in a debate at Biola University in 2009 where Stephen Meyer debated two critical biologists. One of those scientists was Arthur Hunt from the University of Kentucky, who had previously cited the research of Michael Yarus which proposed that certain chemical affinities between RNA triplets and amino acids could have formed a chemical basis for the origin of the genetic code. According to Hunt, Yarus’s research showed that “chemistry and physics … can account for the origin of the genetic code” and thus “the very heart of Meyer’s thesis (and his book [Signature in the Cell]) is wrong.” Meyer and Nelson’s BIO-Complexity paper responds to Yarus’s claims, showing that when challenged, ID proponents can produce compelling technical rebuttals. According to their detailed response, Yarus’s (and Hunts’) claims fail due to “selective use of data, incorrect null models, a weak signal even from positive results, … and unsupported assumptions about the pre-biotic availability of amino acids.” Rather than refuting design, the research shows the need for “an intelligently-directed” origin of the code.
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
This paper reports research conducted by Biologic Institute scientists Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe on the number of minimum changes that would be required to evolve one protein into another protein with a different function.
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
This peer-reviewed paper by Michael Behe in the journal Quarterly Review of Biology helps explain why we don’t observe the evolution of new protein functions. After reviewing many studies on bacterial and viral evolution, he concluded that most adaptations at the molecular level “are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function.” In other words, since Darwinian evolution proceeds along the path of least resistance, Behe found that organisms are far more likely to evolve by a losing a biochemical function than by gaining one. He thus concluded that “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.” If Behe is correct, then molecular evolution faces a severe problem. If a loss (or decrease) of function is much more likely than a gain-of-function, logic dictates that eventually an evolving population will run out of molecular functions to lose or diminish. Behe’s paper suggests that if Darwinian evolution is at work, something else must be generating the information for new molecular functions.
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).
This original research paper on mutagenesis in plants favorably cites "intelligent design proponents," including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, as advocating one of various legitimate "scientific theories on the origin of species." Citing skeptics of neo-Darwinism such as Behe and "the almost 900 scientists of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," the paper notes that:
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western world instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...
etc. etc.
I would say that if you can't see anything of value then you should simply rest contently knowing that you possess all the truth necessary to satisfy your understanding. You have no need to argue for the truth you know must exist because you cannot alter the fact of an actual truth by arguement. All you need to do is sit idley by until the evidence appears to justify what you know as fact to those who are less endowed than yourself.
