My latest "Eureka!" moment while arguing that Charles Darwin's famous theory of common descent with modification is actually a rather pathetic explanation for the modern diversity of life came when I realized that the work of Gregor Mendel had been purloined by evolutionary biologists and made the centerpiece of their argument. Clearly, Mendel's research into genetic recombination demonstrated how descent with modification produced variety in plants, and it stood to reason to assume that the same sort of variety was produced by sexual reproduction by animals. Indeed, anyone brave (or foolish) enough to express skepticism at the idea that Charles Darwin's theory explains the origin of new species had better be prepared for an unprecedented degree of anger, scorn, ridicule, and frequent suggestions to consider remedial biology classes. The question remains: does Mendel's work truly explain the origin of new species, or is that explanation flawed? The idea sounds preposterous on the surface, sort of like the plot of a bad science fiction movie titled Planet of the Furless Apes. Darwin famously scribbled "Monkeys make men" in one of his notebooks to capture the idea that modern evolutionary biologists might call "changes of accumulations in allele frequency changes", which is a fancy way of saying that humans evolved from apes when certain DNA patterns become dominant while others become recessive. Humans lost their fur, grew physically smaller but developed bigger brains, simply because we could. It is theoretically possible, and the only other potential explanation in … [Read more...]
DNA, the ultimate source code
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Another in the series of articles explaining how evolution theory requires luck or intent in order to be reconciled with existential science knowledge and current understanding. The original content has been reformatted and lightly edited to make it easier to read.] DNA: the ultimate source code In my writings as Atlanta Creationism Examiner, I have never pretended to be a scientist. On the other hand, for two decades I wrote computer software for a living, so I am considered an expert by many in the field of software development and application programming. In college I was taught “Computer Science”, called Management Information Systems in Business school, but I never really considered programming software a “science.” Science seems to take place most often in an ivory tower paid for by government grant. By the same token, I saw very little management of information systems in the real world. Our code more behaved like electronic assistants to help do a job as opposed to decision makers who told you how. If there's any one thing that I know about computer software that will always be true, it's that you cannot guess what will happen inside the machine simply be reading its source code. If something is in code, it is a form of software. That means it has been designed. Look, I know how software works; I have created applications that remains in use today, years after leaving the business. I know the computer is no smarter than its programmer. I wrote banking software, translation tools, financial applications, email service providers … [Read more...]
