Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2008,07:21)|
|What I want to know about the list of papers at the Biologic Institute is which ones support the idea of an Intelligent Designer?|
|Shapiro JA, von Sternberg R (2005) Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function. Biological Reviews 80: 227-250. Review. PMID: 15921050|
von Sternberg R, Shapiro JA (2005) How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 110: 108-116. PMID: 16093662
Axe DD (2004) Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology 341: 1295-1315. PMID: 15321723
Lu H, Macosko J, Habel-Rodriguez D, Keller RW, Brozik JA, Keller D (2004) Closing of the fingers domain generates motor forces in the HIV reverse transcriptase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279: 54529-54532. PMID: 15385563
Keller D, Swigon D, Bustamante C (2003) Relating single-molecule measurements to thermodynamics. Biophysical Journal 84: 733-738. PMID: 12547757
As far as I can see, none of them even come close! Mind, I've not read the papers in question but.....
Doesn't matter at all. Their audience is not scientists, but people just like FTK. They'll be dazzled by a big list of six or seven sciency-sounding titles full of long words, and even tho they'll never read them (or even look at them), they'll immediately come to the conclusion that "there is now scientific proof of Intelligent Design." They will then trumpet this assertion all over the internet, and be further emboldened when their local school district holds meetings to establish scientific curricula. (Where they will declare "there are all kinds of scientific papers proving Intelligent Design!") The goal of the research is then achieved.
Well, the first goal. The second goal, of 'overthrowing materialism', might take a bit longer.
In fact, no one will read the papers at all probably except people like PZ.
BTW, the Wikipedia article has some funny bits:
New Scientist magazine sent a reporter to the Biologic Institute facilities in late 2006 to investigate. The reporter, Celeste Biever, was given a fairly chilly reception and found few willing to speak to her about their research. Although the New Scientist article was somewhat negative, the Discovery Institute touted it as unequivocal evidence that the Biologic Institute is engaging in scientific research.
The only one of the four Biologic Institute directors willing to speak to New Scientist reporter Biever was George Weber, a retired member of the business faculty at Whitworth University, a private Christian college associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Spokane, Washington. Weber belongs to the Spokane chapter of Reasons to Believe, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian creationist organization. Weber stated that, "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" and "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." After speaking to New Scientist, Weber left the board of the Biologic Institute. Axe explained in an email to Biever that this was because Weber "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it."
This is even funnier:
|Code Sample |
|Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium held from June 3 through June 7, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts. As reported by Daniel Brooks, "...she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning."|
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus