Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design"

[Petr]

Darwinists have no permanent moral codes, so they are ever ready to be dishonest "for the cause." They practise deception by omission all the time.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html#more


Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design"


In the New Scientist profile last month of the new intelligent design research lab, there was discussion of two technical articles published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by protein scientist Doug Axe (for abstracts, see here and here). 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disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research.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, contrasting the positive interpretations of Axe's research offered by intelligent design theorists William Dembski and Stephen Meyer with the dismissive views of unnamed "scientists." The implication seemed to be that Dembski and Meyer have misrepresented Axe's research by claiming that it provides evidence against neo-Darwinism and corroboration for intelligent design. Interestingly, the one person whose voice is left out of the New Scientist's discussion of Axe's research is Dr. Axe himself. One might have hoped that the New Scientist would be interested in what Dr. Axe thought of the relationship between his own research and intelligent design. It turns out that the reporter for the New Scientist did ask Dr. Axe for his view, but she then chose not to disclose Axe's response to readers.

Dr. Axe was asked via e-mail by writer Celeste Biever to respond to the charge

[t]hat you have neither confirmed nor denied claims by William Dembski (in his book "Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA" and in several articles he has written) that a paper you published in 2000 (J Mol Biol, 2000 Aug 18; 301(3):585-95) is evidence for ID, or by Stephen Meyer, in his paper "The origin of biological information" (PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117(2):213-239. 2004), that your 2004 paper (J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315) is evidence for ID.
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.
Hmm. The author of the articles in question agrees with Dembski and Meyer that his research "adds to the case for intelligent design." But the New Scientist didn't think that fact important enough to report to its readers.

Posted by John West on January 10, 2007 2:05 AM |

[delete]

Petr:

I think you use the fallacy that everyone who publishes scientific papers is an objective scientist.

Is it your meaning that God created all the different species with more and more similar genes the more related two species were?

Why would God make us share allmost all genes with negroes, a notch fewer with the chimps, and even fewer again with the slime eel? (Hagfish)

[Aloy]

Petr:

I think you use the fallacy that everyone who publishes scientific papers is an objective scientist.



If a paper were "scientific" with repeatable observations your objective bit falls out. It would not matter. Ape-olutionists have never repeated that an white national "evolved" from a baboon through some mysterious giant energy source and unknown communications system.



Why would God make us share allmost all genes with negroes, a notch fewer with the chimps, and even fewer again with the slime eel? (Hagfish)



You are describing efficiency. Certainly a God like trait. It appears to those who have not been beat up by a black man and hold a grudge that negroes were built to live in Africa. A place where you who claimed to have an ape grandfather would last about five minutes. :crazy:

[delete]

If a paper were "scientific" with repeatable observations your objective bit falls out. It would not matter. Ape-olutionists have never repeated that an white national "evolved" from a baboon through some mysterious giant energy source and unknown communications system.

You are describing efficiency. Certainly a God like trait. It appears to those who have not been beat up by a black man and hold a grudge that negroes were built to live in Africa. A place where you who claimed to have an ape grandfather would last about five minutes. :crazy:

Efficiency is not only a God-like trait. Ants find the shortes way between a food source and their home without it, all based on a simple algoritm. Information is sent over the internet based on the same principles.

Evolution is much of the same process, and I have used it to optimize statistical variables, and for me it just the process all living things in nature obeys.

I am pretty sure WE had an ape-ancestor, but I am not sure that he came from Africa yet. I think some variant of multi-regional evolution is correct.

A little more on my question.
Different Species With The Same "Junk DNA" (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dna_virus.html)

Junk DNA is inherited. Suppose we find a pattern in the junk DNA of two different species, and don't find that pattern in other species. Evolution can explain the situation by saying that the two species recently had a common ancestor, and both species inherited this pattern from their ancestor.
...snip...
To the best of my knowledge, Creationism does not predict or explain such situations. Since the pattern is in the junk, one cannot argue that the pattern confers any short-term benefit or meets any need.
...snip...
Finally, we ask if this conclusion leads anywhere. To be science, it has to make predictions, that can be tested to see if they are right.

The answer is yes. From the standard biological taxonomy, we can predict that only artiodactyls ("even toed" mammals) have the patterns. So, we can test animals that aren't artiodactyls, like cats and iguanas. We can predict that since cows have the patterns, all ruminants should. So, we can test sheep and goats. We predict that all cetaceans have the patterns, so we can test dolphins and killer whales. Furthermore, we don't predict just that dolphins have the patterns. We also predict that dolphins have the patterns at the exact same genetic locations.

In fact, many of these predictions have already been tested, and so far they have always been correct.The Minke Whale, Baird's Beaked Whale, Dall's Porpoise, Short-Finned Pilot Whale, and Bottlenose Dolphin all had both patterns, and in exactly the predicted places. Sheep, the Reticulated Giraffe, the Axis Deer, and the Lesser Malayan Chevrotain also are as predicted.

To sum up: this evidence unambiguously says that whales and cows have a common ancestor.

[Aule]

@Fade: Start another thread on the subject and move the relevant posts from this thread into the new one. I don't have the time to do it right now. Petr's right, your posts are off topic.

@Petr: Answer Fade's question.

[Helios Panoptes]

split: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19334