Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, January 11, 2007

The design inference- in peer-review (HT Evolution News & Views)

Often it is claimed by anti-IDists that ID does not appear in peer-reviewed journals.

IDists counter with articles in peer-review that support the design inference. Articles such as the following:

Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors

and

Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds

Anti-IDists tried to counter that claim by saying the scientist involved does not share the same inference as IDists do. However that counterclaim now stands refuted:

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.--Douglas Axe


(for the original Evolution News and Views article go HERE)

10 Comments:

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger scripto said…

    Kitzmiller - day 7

    Those scientists that I just mentioned have been publishing in peer-review magazines. Is that correct?

    A. They publish their legitimate scientific research data in peer-review magazines -- I'm sorry peer-review journals. Those are not articles that support intelligent design theory.

    Dr. Axe's work, as I understand it, as my coauthor has reviewed and evaluated it, it's perfectly solid scientific work. There's nothing in it that supports intelligent design theory. And Dr. Axe himself declined to say that it did when I specifically asked him to do that or what was his position.


    You may want to get a firmer committment from Dr. Axe before you go to trial again.

     
  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It would be helpful if you provide a link to the testimony along with the person testifying. That we we could judge its accuracy. By not providing that it raises a red flag- meaning what you provided is most likely total nonsense.

    However all I would need to do is to present what Dr Axe stated in the OP.

     
  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kitzmiller day 7:

    AM: Barbara Forrest, Jennifer Miller
    PM: Jennifer Miller, Bertha Spahr

    What scripto posted sounds like something that Forrest would say. Her testimony is littered with lies. And this is just another one that went under my radar...

    (If she testifies in any ID trial I am involved with she doesn't stand a chance.)

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Flabergasted! said…

    Does this mean that ID is now mainstream accepted science? Is Darwinism finally dead?

     
  • At 10:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Flabergasted!
    Does this mean that ID is now mainstream accepted science?

    No. Time and effort. Time is on our side and the effort is being put forward.

    Flabergasted!
    Is Darwinism finally dead?

    No. It will never die as it will always be a footnote.

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Flabergasted! said…

    Joe G said...
    Flabergasted!
    Does this mean that ID is now mainstream accepted science?

    No. Time and effort. Time is on our side and the effort is being put forward.


    Who is putting forward the effort and where?
    I live fairly near to the natural history museum in London (UK). Darwinian Evolution is presented as a fact there. What is wrong with that? Why is a theory presented as a fact?

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Falbergasted!
    Who is putting forward the effort and where?

    No owls allowed on this blog. :)

    But anyway- Dr Axe, for one, in secret basement labs, around the world. These are networked via tin cans connected by a taught string.

    Seriously though:

    Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in New Scientist


    Flabergasted!
    I live fairly near to the natural history museum in London (UK).

    I've been there- London (UK)

    Falbergasted!
    Darwinian Evolution is presented as a fact there. What is wrong with that? Why is a theory presented as a fact?

    First, Darwinian evolution has been replaced by the modern synthesis. Second I can't tell you "why" others do what they do.

    What I can tell you is what reality demonstrates:

    Wobbling Stability

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger scripto said…


    (If she testifies in any ID trial I am involved with she doesn't stand a chance.)

    Ya gonna beat her up too?

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    scripto:
    Ya gonna beat her up too?

    Too? Two? To?

    By exposing her lies in a Courtroom she will have beat herself.

    I am sure you know quite a bit about beating yourself.

     
  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Scripto,I'm noticing a pattern with you- you come in posting loud-n-proud only to get whittled to irrelevent babbling.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home