an example of ID research and paper

Speaking of definitions, what's an "evo"? Looking at the arguments put forward by most creationists, Michael "common descent" Behe could be called one. And I think there are a few "front loader" I.D. people who go further than Behe, and are complete "evos". They just aren't "abios", as their intelligent designer created the initial life form. I.D. is a broad church, and inevitably always will be, because sectarianism is a characteristic of religion (anyone can make up different evidenceless versions of what the intelligent designer actually does and doesn't do, so theological differences automatically happen, as we can see in the entire history of the Abrahamic religions and their numerous sects).But directly on to the topic, and I think there are problems with the O.P. Fine, perfectly correct, and we can all agree on that, but: The problem sentence. If Dr Axe is wrong, and none of his papers show evidence for intelligent design, then it could be correct to claim that no I.D. research or papers are done, and, more importantly, there would be nothing in the O.P. that backs that single sentence up. It should have read "if Dr. Axe is right, then to simply claim no I.D. research or papers are done is false." That would be correct, except that with the sentence I italicized, you are, in a sense, assuming that Axe's paper supports I.D.So, this thread is obsolete, as a technical discussion of the paper in relation to I.D. is required, and, understandably randman does not want to do that here (or anywhere, I would guess).

Don't be childish. You can't explain how the paper supports intelligent design, and that's because it doesn't. You've managed more than 6,000 posts on this site without presenting one single shred of evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer of your desires, and that's pathetic.You (or Dr. Axe) asserting that a paper is evidence for I.D. does not make it so.

Must have all been before my time, then.... Really? I always got the impression that you were pushing a religious view. I actually have. I was brought up to believe that an intelligent designer created all things bright and beautiful, but I looked at the data, and de-programmed myself, shedding that childhood indoctrination decades ago. You should try it some time. It's refreshing. Ah, how unfortunate. Especially because you must be straining at the leash to add to your tons of evidence, but are cruelly prevented from doing so because some fool brought up the subject of Dr. Axe's work in the wrong section of the site.When I've got time, I'll start a thread on Axe's research (if you don't get there first, in your eagerness to enlighten us as to why it shows evidence for your designer). See you there.

That's the stuff. I read Arthur Hunt's article before I started posting on this thread, as well as the abstracts.There's no evidence for I.D. in there, and Axe's "big number" in the 2004 paper was in a range already established. Do you think it's worth opening a topic just to be cruel to randman? Maybe.