If intelligent design is junk science (as it is so often accused of being), then this absolutely qualifies as junk science: “ET Genetic Code May Be Found In Human DNA, According To Kazakhstan Scientists’ Biological SETI Theory.”
But Mike, it’s peer reviewed.
And it’s junk science.
How do I know?
Look at the abstract to the actual journal article. What you have here is (a) an idea [i.e., a theory] defended by (b) math. In other words, science has added another sacrament to its panspermia religion to keep the blessed Drake Equation company. There is *nothing* repeatable in this “science” and nothing empirical in terms of data. There is nothing to falsify.
Nothing. Zero. Nada.
The article is in essence saying: “Hey, ET DNA may be encoded in our DNA – have an equation” (rim shot).
Like I said, if intelligent design is going to be criticized for the above (it’s non-falsifiable and unrepeatable), this article and theory is the poster child for junk science.
The most hypocritical part of it is that you could just swap in the word “God” here and there in the abstract and defend intelligent design just as unscientifically.
MSH: The problem with the historical sciences is that almost every thing is non repeatable and and non empirical. This goes for the modern synthesis itself, as all we have is the observable evidence, and all we can do is make hypothesis and or theories and see how well they meet their predictive criteria. Again let me repeat. We cannot repeat prokaryote to man macro evolution, and so we cant test prokaryote to man evolution macro evolution. On this subject alone, the literature is filled with words like may have, could have, possibly, perhaps etc. Intelligent design is a scientific field, and design “theory” can be applied as an empirical science in the here and now, as in real world terms. Let me give you at one example. As we speak, Park Center at MIT is using the same design theory created and applied to engineered and intelligently designed systems such as space shuttles, complex electrical systems and applying this same design theory to the living cell in the field of systems biology. And keep in mind, they are not teaching intelligent design theory as a religion or philosophy. They are in fact using design theory as a practical application, i.e. when the cell is viewed from a perspective of and intelligently designed engineered system, superior results in our understanding are achieved.
Now lets contrast these findings and the usage of design theory in the field of systems biology with the more current peer reviewed papers recently published by even those who still adhere to the idea of evolution, but are honest enough to admit that the modern synthesis (as still taught to this day) can no longer be considered a valid theoretical frame work for evolutionary biology. In fact many are even demanding and or calling for the need for a new extended (non Darwinian) synthesis, as the limitations of the modern synthesis and its assumptions have been openly challenged and which has been met with much anger and resentment by many mainstream defenders of the current theory. In fact the NCSE and many others do not support this idea which was proposition at Altenberg Austria in 2008. And even this new proposition cannot be considered empirical.
Systems Biology using Axiomatic Design and Complexity Theory
One of the goals of systems biology is to understand the functions of a biological system in terms of the behavior and interactions of its molecular constituents. The task is difficult because both the physiological functions and the physical and chemical structures of biological systems consist of many levels of aggregation and hierarchy. In this work, we are trying to present a roadmap for establishing the relationship between the high-level functions and molecular-level interactions is presented. It is based on the application of Axiomatic Design theory and complexity theory that have been developed for engineered systems.
http://web.mit.edu/pccs/research/systemsbio.html
Articles retrieved from PUBMED
The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2
The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the “Modern Synthesis” which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that “Modernist” biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
Eugene V. Koonin
“The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair”……..
Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution
M.W. Ho
We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework—the natural selection of random mutations—is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.
Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis
Eva JablonkaI; Marion J. LambII
ABSTRACT
This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance – the idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.
An excellent contribution. You wrote:
“Intelligent design is a scientific field, and design “theory” can be applied as an empirical science in the here and now, as in real world terms.”
“Now lets contrast these findings and the usage of design theory in the field of systems biology with the more current peer reviewed papers recently published by even those who still adhere to the idea of evolution, but are honest enough to admit that the modern synthesis (as still taught to this day) can no longer be considered a valid theoretical frame work for evolutionary biology. In fact many are even demanding and or calling for the need for a new extended (non Darwinian) synthesis, as the limitations of the modern synthesis and its assumptions have been openly challenged and which has been met with much anger and resentment by many mainstream defenders of the current theory.”
Put those together and the result gets to the heart of what I’m trying to provoke — the utter hypocrisy of denying ID its day in academic / scientific court while publishing and promoting “design theory” for lesser gods – intelligent ET designerS. I’ve read enough Dembski (and others) to know that certain ID ideas can be tested and falsified. I’m trying to get people to defend that this new theory *is* scientific by pushing some buttons against it, just to ask them why ID isn’t being looked at the same way.
I predicted this would be a trajectory years ago, and that took no prophetic gift! It’s all very logical, given the internal push back you note in the second excerpt. Expected, but still hypocritical.
Yeah, please forgive the grammar, and I’m sorry for getting a little off track on the SETI citation (which I do not believe is un reasonable as I myself have been saying for years that SETI was pointing there telescopes in the wrong direction, as the genome is filled with plenty of CSI/ complex specified information, and in orders of magnitude) I guess I was just trying to make a bigger point as to the dual standards that are so often applied concerning this subject.
Is this picture a ‘seed’ sent to Earth by aliens? Scientists discover mysterious organism (24 January 2015)
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/metal-globe-300×178.jpg
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/bcab/news
Looks interesting. I just wish there was someone else behind it besides the Journal of Cosmology. That journal has been criticized for not being a very good peer-reviewed journal. I can’t evaluate that criticism since exobiology isn’t my field, but I’ve read it more than once.
But there’s a perpetual problem here – one that ultimately requires a religious claim (a leap of faith as it were). Let’s say that this is indeed a “micro balloon” that could seed life on a planet like ours (same or similar parameters for life). How would anyone determined it was intelligently sent? Science can’t determine that. So, on the one hand, believers in intelligent panspermia have to make a faith claim that intelligent ETs sent it to seed life. Theistic evolutionaists, on the other hand, would claim that God is behind the micro-organism (another faith statement).
And then there’s the old “yes, it’s out there and could seed life — but did it?” question. That is, does the effect (life on earth) truly derive from the cause (the seedling). And how would that be knowable?
Granted, the mainstream media would tout such a thing as proof for more than what it’s actually proof of.
But it looks interesting.