From Uncommon Descent, Could the public be starting to get enough information to see through Darwinism?
(I added the links lost in the original UD post)
At one time, a Darwinian sneer sufficed for an argument:
In the past, the general public lacked the technical knowledge to decipher the science underlying the evidence for protein rarity, so they were powerless to see past the critics’ smoke and mirrors (see here, here, and here). Fortunately, a straightforward analysis of the research by protein expert Dan Tawfik (see here, here, and here) not only confirms and generalizes Axe’s results, but is much more accessible to the public. Tawfik’s research on β-lactamase yielded results that almost perfectly confirm Axe’s rarity estimate. In addition, the former’s research and research on the HisA enzyme demonstrate that randomly altering less than 2 percent of the enzymes’ amino acids disables them over half of the time. And, altering 10 percent will disable them nearly 100 percent of the time. In contrast, altering 2 percent of a paragraph written in English is usually barely noticeable, and altering 10 percent still leaves a paragraph largely readable. Therefore, protein sequences are often far rarer than readable English sentences, so they are even more difficult to generate by chance.Brian Miller, “Mistakes Our Critics Make: Protein Rarity” at Evolution News and Science Today:
It’s not that the public has become smarter but the discussion has gone on for so long that Darwinians can’t get away with just sneering. And their hats don’t have many rabbits left either.
The good old days, where jargon and verbiage and appeals to authority, draw to a close.
Also, check out the links here:
In previous articles, I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information cannot emerge through any natural process (see here and here), and I described how such information points to intelligent design. Now, I am addressing the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims (see here, here, here, and here). See my post yesterday, here, on misapplying information theory.
A second category of errors relates to arguments against the conclusion that the information content of many proteins is vastly greater than what any undirected process could generate. Most of the critiques are aimed at the research of Douglas Axe that estimated the rarity of amino acid sequences corresponding to a section of a functional β-lactamase enzyme. Many of the attacks result from the skeptics’ failure to properly understand Axe’s 2004 article in the Journal of Molecular Biology or the underlying science.Brian Miller, “Mistakes Our Critics Make: Protein Rarity” at Evolution News and Science Today:
As usual: if you have an a priori (“presuppositional”) commitment to evolution and atheism, then evolution MUST be true, however much it flies into the face of known science, statistics, and logic.
But if you don’t have a preset faith commitment…
well, at least
“Anti-supernatural creator commitment”! )
…then the evidence for evolution is looking rather more threadbare by the month.