Intelligent design study published in peer-reviewed journal

[Samson]

I know this issue has come up here, so I thought people may be interested in this paper. The journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" has published a paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories". I have not read it fully (it is nearly 12,000 words, not including references and end notes), but it would appear to pressent a number of cases which are difficult to explain by darwinian evolution.

From my breif skim read of it, it would apear there is certainly no new science, and the ideas presented do not seem to me to really present the the case of evolution accuratly. It was descrided as "recycled material quite common in the intelligent design community." and "a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, and tendentious interpretations." [1].

To be honest, I am a bit shocked that they published this, as are a number of the members of the Biological Society of Washington. It also sounds like something dodgy was going on with the review proccess, and the journal issued a repudiation [2]. Unfortunatly, I can imagine many ID proponents stating their ideas were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and 99.9% of people will never read the repudiation, let alown the articale its self.

The paper -

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

[1] An article on it with lots of links -

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04/

[2] The journals response -

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp

 

[ybbor]

i can't take the time to read it, but as this thread is dangerously close to the point of no return (page 2 ) i feel i must it [translation= eleqouent protest of the ten charecter limit ]

Moderator Action: If it dies, then it dies. Please don't bump threads if you have nothing to add.

 

[Perfection]

Ah, the creationists are reverting to higher and higher levels of organisation to which they object to!

Also, they claim that functional protiens are statistically impossible to be created, yet they have been proven to exist in a geologically short timeframe!

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've got pictorial evidence that boring red blobs have evolved into stylized walled camps in as little as less than a millionth of a light-second.

 

[Samson]

Ah, the creationists are reverting to higher and higher levels of organization to which they object to!

Not absolutly sure which bit you are refering to. I took issue with them throwing the numbers about how is was so unlikely to get a workign protein with n residuse, when this number means nothing in evolutionary terms. There was no mention of all the mechannisms that allow reuse for "working" sequences in novel roles. However, it is interesting to note ...

Also, they claim that functional protiens are statistically impossible to be created, yet they have been proven to exist in a geologically short timeframe!

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

I will admit to being amazed by this. I would have said it was imposible if asked. A frame shift, so all the residues are "randomised", and not only do you get a protein produced, but that protein has a function that is usful in the world today. Thanks for pointing this out.

I've got pictorial evidence that boring red blobs have evolved into stylized walled camps in as little as less than a millionth of a light-second.

Just to confirm, you are saying you have pictures of humans settlments less than 3 km across