Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 20 of 112 (180993)
01-27-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by CK
01-26-2005 7:21 PM


WILLOWevcTREE
Hey Charles-
Did you follow WT's link to Internet Infidels Discussion Board, where you can bask in the glory of a one-on-one great pyramid debate between WT (now going by the name "WILLOWevcTREE") and "Pervert Hobbit Fancier"? Such memories...
Back on topic, there is also the ID "journal" Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), which only seems to contain review and theoretical articles. (Again not quite what the thread is after).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by CK, posted 01-26-2005 7:21 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 01-27-2005 1:59 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 27 of 112 (186854)
02-19-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


first id article published / same old tactics
Hey Mick, welcome to the forum.
I just scanned part of the review and I see it trotting out the usual propaganda tactics of omission and misrepresentation, just dressed up in the language (but not the logic) of science.
If I had been a reviewer of the manuscript, I would have probably rejected solely on the following line, following the tired old probability game:
A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4^999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20^333 possibilities.
Which is it? Meyer just gave two probabilities for the same exact situation, which is problematic as self-contradiction, and more problematic because neither is correct.
I also enjoyed his total misrepresentation of theories of origin of novel genetic information, starting with:
Indeed, mutagenesis experiments cast doubt on each of the two scenarios by which neo-Darwinists envisioned new information arising from the mutation/selection mechanism (for review, see Lonnig 2001). For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. Both scenarios are problematic.
Meyer might have something of a point if he hadn't ignored the fact that there are more than two scenarios. Specifically, he tries to refute novel genes arising from preexisting functional sequence by stating that the organism could not survive the alteration and thus loss of preexisting gene function. I guess Meyer never heard of genetic duplication events.
He also didn't bring up domain-level duplications and rearrangments, which have the capacity to rapidly create novel proteins.
While Meyer has references dotted throughout the review, he doesn't cite any evidence for his key assertions from which the rest of his argument follows. He repeatedly states:
New cell types require many new and specialized proteins.
Since he provides no reference for this repeated claim, I can only believe there is no evidence for it; that it is an argument from the obvious. Given the discussion going on in the thread Cells into Organs: could it evolve?, it would appear that Meyer is incorrect, or at least drastically overstating his case.
Another silly tidbit:
Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.
He then goes on to argue for several paragraphs without further references that neoDarwinists have got it all wrong, since genetic information cannot code for pattern and organization. A bold argument considering it is founded on a single claim about proteins from a non-peer-reviewed book ...
There are other obvious errors of logic and omission in the review - maybe others can pick their favorite.
It is really too bad that the review passed "peer review".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:40 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 30 of 112 (186857)
02-19-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
02-19-2005 7:36 PM


Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Thanks for the link RAZD.
So... it was published in a "peer-reviewed journal", but it wasn't actually peer-reviewed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:53 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2005 8:11 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 02-20-2005 9:15 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024