| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
30 Aug 05 Hi Lisa and all, yes, there was a paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology which was reported in the series on evolution and ID in the New York Times recently: A Dr. Axe from a "Biological Institute" wrote about Penicillinase, and that the probability was "essentially zero" that that protein could have formed via evolution--and it was published in the peer-reviewed journal according to the NYXs. I haven't checked the original article, but see the New York Times, Aug. 22, 2005, front page: In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash, by Kenneth Chang. --Sally E. Walker Dr. Lisa E. Park wrote: > You might also want to check out Ken Miller's refutation of the irreducible > complexity. He has eloquently picked apart the eye and mousetrap arguments > of Behe and others. I think that the ID people just keep coming up with > different 'arguments' as theirs keep getting refuted. They are now big on > the complexities of the cell. I think that the obvious response to most of > their complexity arguments is that just because we do not understand > something is not proof that it was divinely created. There are a lot of > areas in science that we do not completely understand. However, once you > begin using the "God of the Gaps" argument, you are really going down a > rocky road, theologically speaking. > > By the way, I did a quick, back of the envelope, calculation and estimated > that there are probably over 4 million peer-reviewed scientific papers that > have been published in biology and paleontology that support evolution. I > am not sure, but I don't think there has been any supporting ID, although > someone told me the other day that one got published in a molecular journal > recently. Does anyone know of that paper? > > Cheers, > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk]On > Behalf Of Roy Plotnick > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:59 AM > To: paleonet > Subject: paleonet ID and function discussion > > > First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my > query. I have learned a great deal from this active discussion. We > need to continue to emphasize, in every forum we have available, that ID > is not science and is poor philosophy. > > Glenn Branch sent an interesting and apropos online article by Shanks > and Joplin , http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm that > is well worth looking at. > > - Roy > -- > Roy E. Plotnick > Professor > Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences > University of Illinois at Chicago > 845 W. Taylor St. > Chicago, IL 60607 > plotnick@uic.edu > office phone: 312-996-2111 fax: 312-413-2279 > lab phone: 312-355-1342 > web page: http://www.uic.edu/~plotnick/plotnick.htm > "The scientific celebrities, forgetting their molluscs and glacial periods, > gossiped about art, while devoting themselves to oysters and ices with > characteristic energy.." -Little Women, Louisa May Alcott > > >
Partial index: