|
Author
|
Topic: an example of ID research and paper
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 1 of 35 (470643)
06-11-2008 4:39 PM
|
|
|
As the New Scientist acknowledged, funding for the research underlying these peer-reviewed articles was provided by Discovery Institute's research fellowship program”thus disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research. Yet the New Scientist tried its best to downplay the relevance of the articles to the theory of intelligent design.... ....... Dr. Axe wrote back the following, which the New Scientist declined to quote: I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.
Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology “Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design” | Evolution News I really cannot debate the research itself and so am not proposing it for a thread topic except to mention it in the "In the News" section to show that as far as the author of the paper, right or wrong, he considers the paper and research to be evidence in favor of Intelligent Design. To simply claim no ID research or papers are done is false. Keep in mind I am not saying anything about the veracity of his paper except it was published, is in the news, and the author considers it ID research and publication.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
well, beauty is the eye of the beholder
One thing is clear to me, what one considers factual or real science or logical is very subjective. I am not going to debate the paper's content except to say his comment seems correct and appropiate and not something you have to squint to see as you suggest. It's clear it was funded by the Discovery Institute and the author considers it supportive of ID. There are other ID papers out there as well, some more direct in their support of ID. In fact, there are probably more ID papers than evo papers in the sense that at least there are some ID papers trying to establish ID related concepts whereas the fundamentals of Darwinism are merely asssumed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2008 6:46 AM | | Wounded King has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Deftil, posted 06-13-2008 10:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 14 of 35 (471209)
06-15-2008 3:06 PM
|
|
|
So you guys are wrong?
Generally it is claimed there are no ID papers, and then when confronted with ID papers, what is your argument? You try to say you don't consider them ID research and papers but the scientists conducting such research and publicizing them do. There is a nice list of some ID papers on the Discovery Institute's site. Imo, it is patently false to go about claiming no ID research and papers are done. Are you guys going to continue to make that false claim now that you are aware such research and papers are done?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by BeagleBob, posted 06-15-2008 3:22 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Hmmmm..
I could restate what the author says but I did not start the thread to get into the particulars of the paper. Otherwise, it'd be a proposed topic, but just pointing out that the attempt to claim no ID papers and research are done is incorrect, and that attempts to claim this doesn't relate to ID conflict with the author's concept of what the paper does, nor does it reflect the funding as it came from an ID organization. If you want to claim that, yes, ID papers and research are done but in YOUR OPINION, the work doesn't properly address ID, that is fine. My point is to correct the oft-repeated slur by so many evos in pretending ID scientists are not doing research and publishing in areas they believe relate to ID. I would not expect evos to admit that the work is valid since they are so predisposed to rejecting any ID concepts a priori, but I do expect some honesty in admitting that it is wrong to smear such scientists as not doing research and publishing in areas they believe relate to Intelligent Design. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Hmmmm..
That means exactly what I said and what I said in the OP. Perhaps you should reread it. Are you prepared to admit ID scientists do indeed do research and publish and believe they are doing ID research? Just a simple question.....should be easy to answer yes or no. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 21 of 35 (471260)
06-15-2008 7:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by BeagleBob
06-15-2008 7:02 PM
|
|
Re: Hmmmm..
Why don't you read the comments in the OP? Here they are again.
I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. Is it your opinion that positing 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is something we should consider reasonably possible and likely?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by BeagleBob, posted 06-15-2008 7:02 PM | | BeagleBob has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
half-wit
Uh huh? So scientists getting published are half-wits if they are not evos? Is that by definition, Adequate? It's really pathetic on your part to continue to hide behind the false smear that no one that disagrees with you really understands evolution in the first place. I suppose he having a Phd and is a published scientist means nothing. He JUST CAN'T understand evo theory and still reject it..... 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2008 6:57 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 06-18-2008 4:51 AM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 30 of 35 (471913)
06-19-2008 1:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by bluegenes
06-18-2008 4:51 AM
|
|
Re: Bad sentence in the original post.
Just correcting the blatant falsehood oft-repeated here that somehow there are no ID papers and research. It's a shame you are not just admitting that, yes, it's wrong for evos here to falsely claim no ID research and papers are done, but that appears to much to ask of some, I suppose.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 06-18-2008 4:51 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 06-19-2008 8:48 AM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 32 of 35 (471988)
06-19-2008 9:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by bluegenes
06-19-2008 8:48 AM
|
|
Re: Bad sentence in the original post.
Actually, I've presented a ton of evidence but mainly I prefer to look at the data itself and try to get a handle on what the data indicates rather than push an ideology/theory. You should try taking that stance sometime. It's refreshing. As far as the paper, I agree fully with the author. However, this is Side Orders so such intricacies are not appropiate here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 06-19-2008 8:48 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-20-2008 12:17 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2