I just finished watching an interesting discussion between Rob Stadler and James Tour comparing the potential and limits of Darwinian-style naturalistic evolution vs. what one should expect if intelligent design were required to explain the diversity between major kinds of living things (see video below).

Both of these scientists have a high degree of relevant expertise when it comes to evaluating designed systems. Rob Stadler obtained his PhD in medical engineering from the Harvard/MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. James Tour obtained his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University.Their discussion focuses on the proposed Darwinian “Tree of Life” where all of the diversity of living things on this planet is thought to have been derived over hundreds of millions of years via the addition of innumerable evolutionary modifications starting from the same original common ancestor (some single-celled organism in some warm pond some four billion or so years ago).  Or, does the evidence better support a kind of “Forest of Life” (or a Dependency Graph Model) where all of the major kinds of living things were originally designed and front-loaded with all of the genetic information for extensive, but limited, diversity within their respective gene pools?

This fascinating discussion is well worth your time. I’m embedding this video starting at a section that kind of summarizes the arguments in favor of the “Tree” vs. the “Forest” of Life.  However, I would recommend watching the entire discussion:

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print