Profile

Cover photo
Brandon Petaccio
720,726 views
AboutPosts

Stream

Pinned

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is pretty rough, but I wanted to get it out there in time for this special occasion. There will be editing.

Darwin Day: Reflections on a Personal Evolution
In honor of Charles Darwin, whose rhetorical modesty and bold intellect I greatly admire, I thought it was about time I traced my own evolution from a timid, perhaps naive, wayfarer, traipsing through a jungle of technical obfuscation and controversy, to what I am today: a marginally better-read version of the same thing. To begin with, I was raised in church, and many of my similarly religious friends were spending their adolescence taking up arms against this thing called “evolution”. Darwin was assumed to be one of history’s great villains, and his ideas were to be vigorously opposed. For my own part, I lacked the confidence to engage in such conversations. Something in me sensed that this was a losing battle. My creeping suspicion was that certain, most-cherished beliefs were opposed to certain, best-established science, and I did not muster the courage to confront so uncertain an outcome until well after high school. It wasn't until some time in college that I first allowed myself to contemplate the issues that had long been laid before me, and, being in the midst of students of all manner of sciences, my situation had become much better suited for exploration.

So I explored. And predictably, evolutionists characterized my questioning as ignorant - a charge to which I plead no contest. Evolutionists were a bombastic  bunch, but they had a knowledge of chemistry and paleontology commensurate with their demeanor. This was just what I had expected: a losing battle against a well-equipped, more experienced army of spiritual progeny of what I assumed was a militant Darwin, posthumously leading the charge. But I was in this to learn, not to win, and in time, I began to learn about Darwin the man. I discovered that he is nothing like his modern heirs to the throne of science.

A Discrepancy of Character
I recently came across a bit of research which showed that individuals with “higher cognitive ability” exhibit a “larger bias blind spot”. One interpretation I read was that smarter people are overconfident, and so are not as careful in consideration of their own views. If I knew anyone at risk for overconfidence, it surely was the most confident people I knew: evolutionists. Their general air of hubris turned out to be in stark contrast to the object of their indelible affections - Darwin - who was remarkably humble. Indeed, Darwin took very seriously the challenges to his seminal work on common descent. He regularly cautioned those in his own camp against credulity, particularly on the subject of abiogenesis (variously called by other names in Darwin's time), despite characterizing this as an issue of "transcendent importance". Darwin took great care to avoid blind spots, and didn't seem to have any, near as I could tell. It's just that he felt he had the best interpretation of the greatest number of facts, despite any anomalous information.

Evolutionists today also feel that they have the best interpretation of facts, but they seem hypersensitive to any suggestion that there remains anything anomalous in modern evolutionary theory. Most surprising of late has been when evolutionists argue with great rigor against facts that come from the mainstream scientific literature, but that they initially assume to have come from some "creationist" website. I am not alluding to singular facts, but to foundational principles and mysteries of modern science that evolutionists, at least the ones I talk to, seem invariably unaware of. These are their blind spots, and I will delineate the three most pervasive.

Blind Spot 1: Digital DNA
Whenever I open the question of the information content in DNA, you can be sure that a large proportion of responses from evolutionists will characterize these biochemical systems as “just a bunch of chemistry,” and not as digital information systems. But this betrays an ignorance of what it means to be digital (http://goo.gl/E659pv). It does not mean that information systems are not amenable to physical law. It means that a limited (quantized) set of well-defined (discrete) characters (signal components) are transmitted across an information channel, and are then translated. The alphabet is digital. Binary is digital. The cell’s biochemical information system transmits sequences of DNA’s nucleotide base pairs (discrete, quantized, signal components) across an information channel (mRNA), then translates it (in the ribosome) into polypeptides, which fold into usable proteins. In other words, DNA and its protein machinery possess all of the qualities of a digital information system. Those who argue to the contrary are stuck in a mode of thinking that went out of vogue half a century ago, when the cell was thought to be a gelatinous amalgam of physical necessity. Such ideas proved to be unfruitful after the elucidation of DNA’s structure in 1953, and researchers grappled with the mystery of heritable traits. It was finally agreed upon that DNA was responsible for inheritance, but researchers were stuck trying to figure out how the physical properties of the nucleotides were responsible for the production of proteins. It wasn’t until Francis Collins’ sequence hypothesis that anyone realized they weren’t. Rather, it was the sequence of nucleotides, not their physical properties, that carried information about heritable traits. From the view that DNA represented a full-blown information system, Collins was able to make a series of risky predictions about the existence of intermediary translation apparatuses, for which there was not yet a shred of evidence, but that soon proved to be remarkably accurate.

Thus, not only is it technically accurate to characterize DNA and its protein machinery as a digital information system, but this view proved heuristically productive and prescient at a time when researchers were at a standstill. The fact of the cell’s information system has become a foundational assumption in the science literature, yet evolutionists still regularly argue the point.

Blind Spot 2: The Tree of Life
A second blind spot happens to be a point of particular confidence among evolutionists: the fossil record. I often see the words “we have the fossils; we win” being bandied about on the internet, but few evolutionists I talk to seem aware that the proverbial tree of life also represents the biggest problem for Darwin’s theory. Darwin anticipated that the geologic record should reveal a “finely graduated organic chain,” and openly recognized that the absence of this pattern was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (http://goo.gl/eJEmWY).

The inevitable response is that 150 years of paleontology has vindicated Darwin, just as he hoped, but the science literature tells a different story. So pervasive in the literature is this alternative reality that it is hard to choose only a few references, but one that stands out comes from an article in the journal Evolution, titled “A Comparative Study of Diversification Events”:

“The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of the classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families... The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”

In other words, the fossil record does not corroborate Darwins narrative that disparate forms are the product of cumulative diversification. If evolutionists turn out not to be ignorant of Darwin’s own concerns with the fossil record (rare), they surely have proved ignorant of the fact that the problem persists today, and is made more acute by the disparity-first pattern in the history of life that is exactly opposite of Darwin’s expectations. From a 2013 article published in the journal New Scientist, titled “Missing rock fuelled Cambrian explosion of life”:

“In a geological blink of an eye, most groups of the animal kingdom appeared in the Earth's oceans and then diversified.”

2013 was a significant year for paleontology, for it also yielded a book by leading paleontologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, titled "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity":

"Morphologic evolution is commonly depicted with lineages more or less gradually diverging from their common ancestor. New features arise along the evolving lineages... but neither the Cambrian nor the living marine fauna display this pattern."

But few capture the situation as poignantly as Eugene Koonin, who remarked in his 2007 work titled “The Biological Big Band Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution”:

“The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

That is just a very minute sampling of the wealth of information in the science literature analyzing life’s pattern of disparity-first. Nowhere does any serious researcher pretend that this pattern does not exist, or that it is not contrary to Darwin’s prediction. Yet, evolutionists have somehow been convinced that “we have the fossils,” despite the overwhelming reality that the geologic record of life continues to present a problem for Darwin’s theory that today is even more acute than in Darwin’s time.

Blind Spot 3 - Falsifiability
A third blind spot is the use of demarcation arguments to categorically dismiss alternative ideas as “non-science”. I characterize this as a “blind spot” because those employing such tactics usually prove themselves to be ignorant of the history and operations of science. There are a number of demarcation arguments, but none is more egregious than falsifiability. It is not insignificant that the popularizer of the falsification criterion, Karl Popper, did not believe that the Darwinian framework was falsifiable. Nor did he believe that unfalsifiable ideas could not have scientific value. More importantly, though, is the work of historian of science Thomas Kuhn, who showed the resilience of large scientific frameworks, like Darwinian evolution. Science operates on the preponderance of evidence, not singular facts where the outcome of one true-or-false proposition determines the success of failure of larger propositions. Rather, scientific frameworks, like Darwinian evolution, are built upon a series of smaller propositions which, together, converge upon certain grand conclusions. Falsify one proposition, and there are still many others supporting the framework. In this way, Kuhn showed, scientific “paradigms” have an inherent tolerance for anomalous outcomes. Yet few would argue that such paradigms are unscientific simply because, as a matter of science history, they are never falsified in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, evolutionists act as though an idea can have no scientific value if it is not falsifiable, even though Popper, from whom their belief is derived, would not have agreed, and despite the questionable falsifiability of large scientific frameworks.

Darwin: No respecter of hubris
As I continue to study Darwin, my admiration grows. He was intellectually sharp, articulate, and honest. He was as confident in his theory as he was candid about its weaker points. I sometimes wonder, if he were suddenly popped back into existence in the year 2015, what he would think about DNA. Would he see it as the “complex organ” that would cause his theory to “absolutely break down” (http://goo.gl/SNDWcj)? Would he be surprised that, 150 years later, the fossil record does not corroborate his tree of life? These questions are intriguing because it is so hard to tell, from what we know about the man. One thing we can be sure of is that he would not be impressed with the hubris of his representatives today. If there’s anything I have learned from Darwin, it’s that the most proud are most deserving of our skepticism. And evolutionists are the proudest people I know.
24
3
Noah G.'s profile photoBrandon Petaccio's profile photoOscar Rivera's profile photoErnie Deaver's profile photo
65 comments
Noah G.
 
+Bill Ingram if Americans come from Europeans then why are there still Europeans?
Learn some basic evolutionary science of you want to keep from sounding like an goober with old tired arguments that should have died out in the 90s.
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio
owner

Science  - 
 
Not sure how I feel about this yet, but it's an interesting developing argument to keep an eye on. The "information" argument from DNA may be generalizable to non-living systems. If non-living systems exhibit the same kind of information (note that not all "information" is the same), then we may have a new category of positive evidence for pre-human conscious mind - what some people might refer to as God.
It’s no secret that the biological world contains all manner of complicated and finely-tuned machines and mechanisms. Even evolutionists admit that life has the
1
1
Antonio DeAguiar's profile photoAndrew Horton's profile photo
 
The Genome has Semantic Instruction and not just any king of information. Semantic instructions in the DNA/Genome Program for every Kind of Organism/Creature is between the Sender who is God the spoke/specified the program and the biological machines which are the receivers with artificial Intelligence to understand the message to obey it.
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
 
Evalise has a moment of clarity about her coming baby sister, normally reserved for parents.

Happy mother's day +Kelly Petaccio 
1
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
4
Joanna Petaccio's profile photo
 
Love it...Happy mothers day Kelly
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

► Javascript jQuery  - 
 
Question: Animate 3D fx?
Hey folks, I've been trying to use "toggleClass" in jQuery to animate a flat div to 45 degree in 3D space. When I set the transform property in the class, it renders the 3D effect. However, I don't know how to get it to animate from one state to the other.

I tried using jQuery, but maybe this isn't the best way? What I don't understand is, the toggleClass isn't work period, when I know it's worked elsewhere. So I'm hoping there's just stupid error in the code that I can't see.

Anyone able to take a look?

http://www.hauntedbuckscounty.com/Experiments/fxPerspective.php
1
Add a comment...
 
Question: Animate 3D fx?
Hey folks, I've been trying to use "toggleClass" in jQuery to animate a flat div to 45 degree in 3D space. When I set the transform property in the class, it renders the 3D effect. However, I don't know how to get it to animate from one state to the other.

I tried using jQuery, but maybe this isn't the best way? What I don't understand is, the toggleClass isn't work period, when I know it's worked elsewhere. So I'm hoping there's just stupid error in the code that I can't see.

Anyone able to take a look?

http://www.hauntedbuckscounty.com/Experiments/fxPerspective.php
1
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
 
Figured it was about time.
Someone once asked me if I'd ever thought about blogging. I said yeah, but I hate the word "blog," first of all, and I doubt anyone would read it anyway. I've had two children since then, and as I'...
1
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
 
A whole other level of poignancy.
 
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA—A report published Thursday by researchers at the University of Virginia has revealed that putting your head in your hands and quietly moaning is still the best known way of getting through the next several seconds.
9 comments on original post
4
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
4
Craig Long's profile photoTerry L. Craig's profile photo
2 comments
 
Nice tutu.  :-)
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
 
Big year for being a parent, huh?
:-)

Happy mother's day +Kelly Petaccio 
1
Joanna Petaccio's profile photo
 
Love this so much. 
Add a comment...

Brandon Petaccio

Shared publicly  - 
 
Betcha can't tell which kid this is!

Happy mother's day +Kelly Petaccio​
1
Phyl Weister's profile photo
 
Evalise lol
Add a comment...
 
Question: Animate 3D fx?
Hey folks, I've been trying to use "toggleClass" in jQuery to animate a flat div to 45 degree in 3D space. When I set the transform property in the class, it renders the 3D effect. However, I don't know how to get it to animate from one state to the other.

I tried using jQuery, but maybe this isn't the best way? What I don't understand is, the toggleClass isn't work period, when I know it's worked elsewhere. So I'm hoping there's just stupid error in the code that I can't see.

Anyone able to take a look?

http://www.hauntedbuckscounty.com/Experiments/fxPerspective.php
1
Add a comment...
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Birthday
May 3
Links