Friday, September 19, 2014

Don Johnson: It’s All About Information

Let’s Get Back to the Science

Don Johnson, with Ph.Ds in Chemistry and Computer & Information Sciences, was certain that evolution was a fact until he realized that evolutionary theory had gone beyond the science. Watch this terrific video to see the role of information in molecular biology.


  1. I have come to realize that there really isn't any evolutionary theory. Alan Fox once told me that it can be gleaned by reading several books and papers on the subject. However, as David Berlinski once said, it is too vague to be considered a theory.

    1. perhaps when you wonder why there aren't any mammals with compound eyes and ask yourself under what predictive system predicts this you will see the value of evolutionary theory. The explanatory power of ID is essentially Nil. Its junk science

    2. Evolution doesn't predict mammals, it doesn't predict eyes and it cannot account for either mammals nor eyes.

      OTOH ID can account for both. ID makes testable claims and evolutionism does not.

    3. ya right joe.. Let me summarize ID theory in a nutshell .. This looks design therefore design. No science, only appeals to incredulity. Evolution on the other hand tells us why there aren't any compound eyes in mammals. The amphibian vertebrate fish that transitioned onto land did not have compound eyes thus as a result all its descendants cannot have compound eyes. A historical legacy.. ID theory cannot make such a prediction. ID basically tries say everything is an independent fact thus ID cannot make any coherent prediction. Its a negative theory..It lives on the gaps and seas of incredulity.

    4. Ya right John. Please link to this alleged evolutionary theory so we can see what it predicts. As I said it definitely does NOT predict mammals nor eyes. BTW it doesn't predict amphibians either.

      Obviously you are just lying for evolutionism. And obviously you are ignorant of ID.

    5. Let me summarize evolutionism- something happened some time in the past and things kept happening and he we are.

    6. John Locklin, "what predictive system predicts this you will see the value of evolutionary theory."

      This is a prediction of Universal Common Descent. Please show me one naturalistic evolutionist that predicted that about 10% of the genome would be orphan genes? This data, by the way, is the natural prediction of ID.

    7. @bfast
      under evolutionary theory we can actually get an potential answer for that, however under ID you just say "I dunno, lets call it design"..

      Evolutionary theorists would say orphan genes are the result from de novo into non-coding regions or and gene duplications diversifying so much they essentially become new genes.

      Bare in mind, that 10% that you speak off, is of functional genes. Intelligent design does not predict junk in the genome and this colossal failure to match the evidence of reality has russelled the jimmies of IDists. ID people basically want to say the sound of a heart beat is function LOL... Such a travesty that an Amoeba has 200 times more DNA than us. Or an Onion with no organs needing more than 5 times DNA than us. Genomes are filled with junk and that doesn't sit well for ID theorists at all. So whats an ID fanboy to do ? Well lie of course. "Proclaim there is no junk". Just ignore all the pseudo genes and repetition and ignore the fact that genome doubling by accident. For as long as we wish it to be true it must be true. Wells book is a travesty of bad science.

      laughable indeed.

    8. What's laughable id your inability to link to this evolutionary theory.

    9. John Locklin:

      "under evolutionary theory we can actually get an potential answer for that, however under ID you just say "I dunno, lets call it design".. "

      This is a incorrect. Please learn something about ID before continuing the misrepresentations. Hopefully this is just a misunderstanding on your part, rather than deliberate misrepresentation (what we typically call a "lie").

  2. John Locklin, "under evolutionary theory we can actually get an potential answer for that"

    I'm waiting. Still waiting for an explanation for first life. Waiting for someone to explain genes that are ultra-conserved over the entire genome. Don't understand that question? Look up what Sir Frederick Hoyle had to say about it.

    On "junk DNA", well, I never have held that ID is incompatible with some junk DNA. Microsoft windows executable code has a bunch of it. However, the human genome that is presumed functional has increased by an order of magnitude in the last decade. It can't do that again and still talk about junk DNA with a straight face.

    Oh, you haven't watched the video that is the core of this post have you?

  3. " ... the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.".

    The usual ID/Creationist gruel spiced up with a dollop of questionable information theory.

  4. What does evolutionism have, Ian? If it had evidentiary support ID would have been a non-starter, yet here we are. And I understand that bothers people like you.