While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.
Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is "developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology." Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature . . . continue
From what I have seen, the whole Intelligent Design gambit is now as dead as the dodo. In short, the Dover trial more or less put a dagger through the heart of Intelligent Design and it has never recovered. Michael Behe seems to have lapsed into some sort of pitiful funk since and he seems to have distanced himself from I.D. now, whilst persecuting his atheist son.
The I.D. movement is in a shambles and it will never rise again.
While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
That sounds very improbable indeed. Please choose, say, three such publications, and in each case give us its title, author or authors, and the reputable journal of science that published it, and if possible give links to them or at least their opening epitomes.
If the publication is in a creationist magazine, don't bother - that's just pseudo-science. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume that's why.
Have the ID folks come up with a reliable test that separates simple rock tools from natural rocks and that can then be applied to cases where it is unknown if the object is designed, cases like biological entities?
If not, then it very much sounds to me like the ID crowd is deliberately building a very narrow and biased test that will only return the results they want --- if the object is biological, it is designed. Until ID proponents can demonstrate that they really can separate known designed from known non-designed objects, why should we blindly accept that they can do the same for unknowns?
While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.
Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is "developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology." Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature . . . continue
however we know that morse code (according to Blu) is much much more complex than DNA and is therefore concluded to be designed by intelligence . . .
Wrong. We do not conclude that Morse code was intelligently designed because it's complex. We draw that conclusion from the fact that Samuel Morse and Alfred Vail are definitely known to have invented it. There is no correlation between complexity and intelligent design. Why would there be?
ScienceDaily (Oct. 23, 2011) — An international team of scientists led by UC Davis researchers has discovered that DNA repair in cancer cells is not a one-way street as previously believed . . . ASPREVIOUSY BELIEVED . . . Their findings show INSTEAD that recombination .. an important DNA repair process .. has a SELF-CORRECTING mechanism that allows DNA to make a virtual U-TURN and start over . . . The study's findings .. which appear in the Oct 23 online issue of the journal Nature .. not only contribute NEW UNDERSTANDING to the field of basic cancer biology .. but also have important implications for potentially improving the efficacy of cancer treatments . . . . "What we discovered is that the DNA repair pathway called recombination is able to REVERSE ITSELF" . . . by unintended accident of course .. said Wolf-Dietrich Heyer .. UC Davis professor of microbiology and of molecular and cellular biology and co-leader of Molecular Oncology at UC Davis Cancer Center .. "That makes it a very robust process .. allowing cancer cells to deal with DNA damage in many different ways .. This repair mechanism may have something to do with why some cancer cells become resistant to radiation and chemotherapy treatments that work by inducing DNA damage" . . . Heyer likens this self-correcting ABILITY . . . . no intelligence here folks .. keep your heads in the sand and move along please . . . quietly . . . . of the DNA repair system to driving in a modern city where u-turns and two-way streets make it easy to RECTIFY a wrong turn . . . . "How much harder would it be to re-trace your path if you were in a medieval Italian city with only one-way streets" he said . . . In the current study .. Heyer and his colleagues used yeast as a model system to elucidate the mechanisms of DNA repair . . . They expect their findings .. like most that come out of work on yeast .. will be confirmed in humans .. "Whether in yeast or humans .. the pathways that repair DNA are the same" Heyer said . . . . The research team used electron microscopy to observe repair proteins in action on strands of DNA .. They saw a presynaptic filament called Rad51 regulating the balance between one enzyme (Rad55-Rad57) that FAVORS . . . recombination repair and another (Srs2) that INHIBITS recombination repair .. By controlling the balance between the two enzymes .. Rad51 can initiate genetic repair -- or the u-turn -- as needed . . . "It is a tug-of-war that has important IMPLICATIONS for the cell because .. if recombination occurs at the wrong time in the wrong place . . . and the odds of an unintended undirected accidental occurance of the right time and the right place are . . . . (insert math please Blu) an unintended undirected accident of course .. however we know that morse code (according to Blu) is much much more complex than DNA and is therefore concluded to be designed by intelligence . . . the cell may die as a consequence." The ability of the repair system to abort ill-fated repair attempts .. gives the cell a second shot .. improving cellular survival after its DNA is damaged .. This is exactly what is dreaded in cancer treatment . . . "There are a lot of hints in the scientific literature suggesting that DNA repair contributes to resistance to treatments that are based on inducing DNA damage such as radiation or certain types of chemotherapy" Heyer said . . . "The ability of cancer cells to withstand DNA damage directly affects treatment outcome .. and understanding the fundamental mechanisms of the DNA repair systems will enable new approaches to overcome treatment resistance" . . . Heyer said the team's next step is to look at the enzyme system in humans and see whether they find the same principles at work . . . This work has received funding and has already begun .. One application of this work will be to target the SELF-CORRECTING mechanism in cancer cells as a way of sensitizing them to radiation and/or chemotherapy treatments . . . "If we can confirm that these types of mechanisms exist in human cells .. then we will have an approach for making cancer cells more sensitive to DNA damage-inducing treatments" . . . Additional authors include UC Davis postdoctoral fellow and first author Jie Liu; UC Davis postdoctoral fellow Ludovic Renault; UC Davis adjunct professor of molecular and cell biology, Henning Stahlberg, formerly of UC Davis and now with the University Basel, Switzerland; and Xavier Veaute & Francis Fabre of the French Atomic Energy Commission .. all Christian non-scientific philosophers of course .. HA !!
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health .. the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program .. the European Community .. the French National Centre for Scientific Research .. the French Atomic Energy Commission and SystemsX.ch (The Swiss Initiative in Systems Biology)
this post is for the viewers .. not dead horses .. you know who you are
Not bad, Dadmann--you have managed to collect all of the creationist misrepresentation and sophistical argumentation about information, code, meaning, etc. all in one convenient place for easy reference.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
