FAQ 3 Open for Comment

_{Barry Arrington

February 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research

Judge Jones of Dover and those who follow him are simply wrong: despite opposition and harassment, there is a significant and growing body of ID-supportive research and peer-reviewed scientific publications. (For instance, the Discovery Institute maintains a list of such research-based publications here. [In an earlier form, this list was actually submitted to Judge Jones, but he unfortunately ignored the brute facts it documents when he wrote his ruling based on misleading and inaccurate submissions by the NCSE and ACLU.])

A few plain words are also in order. For, there has been significant harassment and career-busting that have been targeted at ID proponents. For example, Dembski and Marks were recently forced by Baylor to return a research grant due to the implications of the research possibly being in favor of ID. ID proponents desire to increase the amount of research being done but Darwinists usually block the way. (If you are making this argument then how can you not see the hypocrisy in saying that ID proponents should do research then blocking or opposing every attempt to do so?)

Moreover, it is important to remember that biological research, when properly done, is an example of science at its best: an impartial search for true data and explanations about our world, based on empirical evidence. Such findings are “owned” neither by darwinists nor by IDists. For, at the end of the day, good scientific research is good scientific research, period.

Furthermore, even if the researcher has a specific starting point and conviction, or arrives at specific conclusions, his data are a property of the whole scientific community, and can be legitimately evaluated and interpreted by all. In that sense, all biological research is ID research (or, if you want, darwinist research). ID and darwinism are different, and under many aspects mutually exclusive, theoretical interpretations of the causal origin of biological information. That’s why any new acquisition of biological data has relevance for both.

Comments

#17 bFast "Add to this, research done without benefit of an ID position showing that the HAR1F gene is unique in humans by 18 specific point mutations, yet it is identical amongst all other vertibrates save for three nucleotides that wander like the brease." Very very good point.kairos_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

bFast
Therefore we can simulate the number of generations from the last common ancestor to man in less than a year.
There is an assumption here which at a superficial level seems to make sense. However under closer scrutiny it doesn't really hold up well. The assumption is that the rate of mutation in bacteria is equivalent to the mutation rate in humans so that a given number of generations of bacteria is just a likely to "evolve" as the same number of generations of humans. The fact that bacteria is so stable after several billion years, versus just 6 million years for humans itself is a good indicator that bacteria is much more resistant to the type of changes being sought. Even if you take into account only the amount of time it took for bacteria to make the jump to multicellular life (as opposed to the entire span of bacterial existence), that's still 3 billion years without the type of drastic change that you seem to expect. Of course 500 times as long certainly doesn't seem like a whole lot in terms of this experiment. However, you must remember too that the sample size of the bacteria was 100% for the entire 3 billion year span, while the sample size for the experiment must necessarily be some tiny fraction of a miniscule fraction of a microscopic (no pun intended) fraction of the total bacterial population. All of this leads to a logical inferrence that in 5 or 10 or 150 years of this experiment, it is extremely unlikely that we would see the kind of mutation that you expect to see. Jerry
Here is the response to Kris earlier:
You'll notice that the post that I pointed to was in fact a reaction to exactly this response of yours. You never even attempted to address my point. Feel free to rebut that post at any time. gpuccio
I don’t really agree that it is so important to do research about a specific theory. ... For ID and darwinian theory, especially, general research about biological realities is always pertinent and specific.
I don't necessarily agree, but I can accept that as a legitimate claim. Of course, such statements don't rebut the claim that ID specific research isn't being done. Rather they attempt to justify it. I'm okay with that if you are. Just don't expect this to silence the critics who claim that such research isn't being done. And I kind of doubt that they would be convinced that allowing others to do research, and then simply interpretting that research in the light of ID is good enough. They of course do the same thing, but evolution specific research is certainly being done as well.
Because, as it is said in the FAQ: “ID and darwinism are different, and under many aspects mutually exclusive, theoretical interpretations of the causal origin of biological information.”
One would think that in those areas where the two are mutually exclusive there would be some predictions made by ID that would be in opposition to what is predicted by evolution. Research into exactly those differences would go a long way in bolstering ID, as well as silencing critics who claim that no such research is being done.
We are dealing with empirical research here, not with mathematical demonstrations. Logical falsification, in empirical science, is not so important as many seem to think.
Please note that the logical argument that I make isn't intended to demonstrate that ID is false. Frankly it can't. Rather it demonstrates that being falsifiable via what we have in the past called "negative predictions" does not indicate actual support for the theory just because it has not been falsified yet. In other words it provides no positive reason to believe that the claim is true. You just haven't shown that it's false yet. This is exactly why Arguments From Ignorance aren't considered legitimate arguments. Now, allow me to state that this type of argument can potentially be convincing in cases where the search space has been nearly exhausted without finding what you are seeking. Your claim seems to be that this is the case with ID. The closer you get to searching all possibilities, the more convincing it gets. The problem here is that the search space for ID claims is extremely large compared to what is available to us for direct testing. We have been doing such experiments for decades at most. The effects which we are searching for have occurred on scales of millions and billions of years and with populations far surpassing what we have at our disposal for direct experiment. For instance, it took 3 billion years for multi-cellular life to appear, and the population size (i.e. the sample size) was in the trillions of trillions. Your claim is that, since we haven't seen something similar in 150 years with the number of bacteria that can fit within the lab experiment petri dishes at our disposal, the search has nonetheless been exhaustive enough to be convincing.
We need not falsify darwinian evolution in an ultimate, definitive way.
You need not falsify evolution at all, especially since so many people claim that evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive except in certain specific areas. Simply providing support, and hopefully someday overwhelming support for ID theory would suffice. Negative predictions cannot do this for reasons that I've demonstrated many times.
...and that all the solid evidence against their theory is only an “Argument From Ignorance”.
"Only an argument from ignorance" is not solid evidence. It's perfectly acceptable if you're referring to something that you yourself want to believe. However, if you would like to convince someone else that you're right it's going to take a lot more than just "I must be right because you can't prove that I'm wrong."
To people who are looking for real scientific understanding, all that is of no importance. Scientific, empirical evidence is showing the way each day, and with ever increasing strength. We have just to “follow evidence wherever it leads”. Those who don’t want to do so are entitled to their own choices.
I agree 10,000%.
A few examples of very specific research about crucial ID issues, both ID friendly and not:
I'll try and make some time to take a look at those. (Yeah, I know some of this is kind of repetitive, but I wrote it in pieces during my break time at work)KRiS_Censored_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

A few examples of very specific research about crucial ID issues, both ID friendly and not: Abel and Trevors: "Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information" Li et al.: "The Designability of Protein Structures: A Lattice-Model Study using the Miyazawa-Jernigan Matrix" Taverna et al: "The Distribution of Structures in Evolving Protein Populations" Chandonia et al: "Structural proteomics of minimal organisms: Conservation of protein fold usage and evolutionary implications" Grant et al: "Progress towards mapping the universe of protein folds" Behe and Snokes: "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." Clune et al: "Natural selection fails to optimize mutation rates for long-term adaptation on rugged fitness landscapes." Szostak: "Functional proteins from a random-sequence library" Shapiro: "A simpler origin for life" Durston et al.: "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins" Chakrabarti et al: "Sequence optimization and designability of enzyme active sites" Hazen et al: "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity"gpuccio_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

As I said before Lenski would cringe if he knew he was doing ID research but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe’s thesis.
To my best knowledge Ann Gauger from the Discovery Institute related Biologic Institute is already doing research similar to Lenski's experiments. So there is ID research and Gauger reported about some unexpected "leaky growth" she observed at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium. It has been reported that, unfortunately, a debate of these results of ID research seemingly has been preveted by the moderator by halting questioning.sparc_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Guillermo Gonzalez is an "ID scientist". Dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals, co-author of an advanced astromony textbook, pioneer in detection of extra solar planets and theories surrounding the Galactic Habitable Zone (Gonzalez GHZ was the cover story on Scientific American). And oh yeah, he's the author of the very popular ID book and movie "The Privileged Planet".DaveScot_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed and critter, you're right, its 600,000 generations.bFast_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored (# 9 and 10): I don't really agree that it is so important to do research about a specific theory. That is a very limited way to conceive research. I think most important researches are of the kind you call "general research". Too much focus is often given to testing hypotheses, while we forget that the main purpose is to understand. Testing hypotheses should be seen as one of the possible ways to understand, and not as a game between different teams. For ID and darwinian theory, especially, general research about biological realities is always pertinent and specific. Why? Because, as it is said in the FAQ: "ID and darwinism are different, and under many aspects mutually exclusive, theoretical interpretations of the causal origin of biological information." IOW, ID and darwinian theory are not "specific" theories about some limited field of biology: they are, indeed, general scenarios which try to answer the fundamental question in biology: how did biological information arise? what is its meaning? why is it as it is? So, as you can see, what is at stake here is much more than a specific theory: it is a whole way of understanding and interpreting a vast field of reality. In that sense, any progress in understanding the structure and functions of all biological beings has deep implications on the general theories of biological information and its origin. And your observations about jerry's comment regarding KLenski are, IMO, completely false. We are dealing with empirical research here, not with mathematical demonstrations. Logical falsification, in empirical science, is not so important as many seem to think. What is really important is how credible an explanation is. It is not necessary that an explanation be logically impossible. It's more than enough to show that it is extremely unreasonable. Therefore, each piece of evidence which makes darwinian evolution even more unreasonable (IOW, almost any new piece of evidence from biological research) is an important fact against the theory. We need not falsify darwinian evolution in an ultimate, definitive way. The theory can well survive, and its supporters can well comfort themselves by dogmatically sticking to it against all evidence, searching their final defense in the thought that after all it has not yet been logically falsified, that it "could" still be true, and that all the solid evidence against their theory is only an "Argument From Ignorance". Good for them. Good for you. To people who are looking for real scientific understanding, all that is of no importance. Scientific, empirical evidence is showing the way each day, and with ever increasing strength. We have just to "follow evidence wherever it leads". Those who don't want to do so are entitled to their own choices.gpuccio_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

--Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation.-- 6,000,000 by 10 = 600,000critter_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

bFast, By the way, you're typing too fast. Your math in the last comment is incorrect (6000 generations).Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

My response to Kris on the previous thread he links to is the same as it would be here. Here is the response to Kris earlier: "I love those who accuse us of using the argument from ignorance and display their own ignorance in the process. If someone has an hypothesis and does a test of that hypothesis and the research fails to support the hypothesis, they are failing to support their theory. If the test is repeated ten thousand times, I will go out on a limb and say that the theory is being falsified. I realize that the proper conclusion is that it can never be falsified. So maybe the wording was not exactly correct but like all critics here, the best they can do is nitpick. Otherwise you would have offered the correct wording and interpretation. Or even better, research results." Now back to Lenski's research. I realize for bacteria reproductive events, 10,000 is small potatoes in the scheme of things but use the number of reproductive events that Lenski is up to and it is not trivial and it may far exhausts the number of mammalian reproductive events in the history of the world. If nothing of evolutionary interests happened with this number of events then I will say this supports Behe's thesis. Now I realize there are far different issues with mammalian reproduction and the types of environment and the size of genomes but it still means that the bacteria have had chances to evolve and let's look at a particular evolution event within this population and a display of real ignorance. It is the ignorance by one of the shining lights in evolution, Jerry Coyne, about Lenski's cultures and the change in one so that it now can metabolize citrate. Coyne said "Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen." No, Jerry, the fact that you make this absurd comment supports ID. Coyne is pointing to a trivial event. No creationist would ever say that the event could not happen nor would the ID people. Which means that one needs ignorance to support one's position. Otherwise he would use relevant results not made up ones. A more interesting question is why is Coyne using this false example to make his point? I think we all know the answer. So I stand by my assertion that Lenski's research is ID research and the results so far are very supportive. And for more ignorance by Kris "By this logic, YEC is constantly being researched and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Any research into the age of the earth or the universe is research into the claims of YEC." Yes it is, and it constantly falsifies the YEC position and supports and old earth position and just as every mapping of a genome falsifies the Darwinian position and supports the ID position. I often compare YEC and Darwinist to each other as each must misrepresent the research results to support their ideology. We should make a disclaimer that we do not pay people like Kris to make these comments nor are they ID people posing as anti ID people. They come here under their own accord and are not influenced in any way to say their comments in the ways that they do. We realize they make the ID position so much stronger through their use of irrelevant comments.jerry_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Be that as it may it doesn’t address the question in…um…question.
(ahem) Unless you've lost your sense of discovery, it's all about the evidence. ...and if it isn't then it should be. When the process no longer coordinates, but is used to control and eliminate, then we have what we have today - ideologiocal warfare divorced from the evidence.Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

bFast wrote:
Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation. Bacteria reproduce hourly, or faster. 6,000 hours is less than a year. Therefore we can simulate the number of generations from the last common ancestor to man in less than a year. Experiments have been conducted for five and more years trying to obtain a simple two-specific-mutation evolution. If neither individual mutation offers benefit, if both are merely neutral, five times the number of generations that separate chimps from humans seems insufficent, in bacteria, to produce what needs to be a simple evolutionary step.
Ouch, simple truth like that must hurt the other side. Good post, as usual. AtomAtom_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored:
“This organism will not generate new FCSI within x number of generations,” (an oft repeated prediction of ID, though I’ve given it a specific limitation to make it at least feasible as a research project) do not have an outcome that can be considered unique to ID. This is because current theory works on such large timescales that a negative outcome (FCSI is not generated) is likely to be seen anyway.
Oh, may no, mon ami. Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation. Bacteria reproduce hourly, or faster. 6,000 hours is less than a year. Therefore we can simulate the number of generations from the last common ancestor to man in less than a year. Experiments have been conducted for five and more years trying to obtain a simple two-specific-mutation evolution. If neither individual mutation offers benefit, if both are merely neutral, five times the number of generations that separate chimps from humans seems insufficent, in bacteria, to produce what needs to be a simple evolutionary step. Add to this, research done without benefit of an ID position showing that the HAR1F gene is unique in humans by 18 specific point mutations, yet it is identical amongst all other vertibrates save for three nucleotides that wander like the brease. Our math: 5 * the generation count cannot produce two point mutations + 18 point mutations show up in a gene that has been time tested to be unevolvable. + The HAR1F is a gene involved in brain development. = ID.bFast_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Adel DiBagno I know. I tend to put a comma where there's a pause in my thoughts as opposed to where the comma's actually belong. Upright BiPed Be that as it may it doesn't address the question in...um...question.KRiS_Censored_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Kris, ID is about the evidence...not the process, nor the scientist, nor the establishment.Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

The question then becomes, is there any research being done now or in the past, the results of which are uniquely predicted by ID and unlikely to occur if ID is untrue? (Note: This isn’t a rhetorical question. I genuinely don’t know)
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

This is because current theory works on such large timescales that a negative outcome (FCSI is not generated) is likely to be seen anyway.
Hello KRis, I've often seen a figure of 500 bits used in relation to FCSI here. What kind of timescales are you talking about with regard to an attempt to "grow" some FCSI? Intuitively I would guess that at least one bit of FCSI would be measurable in perhaps an experiment spanning a few generations, if it was indeed capable of being generated by such means as you mention. Proving that one way or the other would certainly be a worthy goal. It reminded me of this fascinating experiment http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/pitchdrop/pitchdrop.shtml A beaker full of pitch has been dripping at the rate of 9 drops per 77 years (so far!). If such a endeavour can potentially outlast the building it's housed in, cannot a similar experiment be proposed here, if only for the sake of settling the issue to the satisfaction of all sides?George L Farquhar_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

This is not a substantive comment, but a question about style. I think there are too many commas.Adel DiBagno_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

jerry:
Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe’s thesis.
Actually, this claim is incorrect. Each generation of data for every culture line either falsifies, or does not falsify Behe's thesis. No result actually supports Behe's thesis until every possible line has been exhausted. To claim otherwise is to engage in an Argument From Ignorance (I believe I mentioned this to you before right here)
Taking this one step further, why isn’t every genome mapping and comparison not an ID study into the limitations or edge of evolution with the species under study.
By this logic, YEC is constantly being researched and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Any research into the age of the earth or the universe is research into the claims of YEC. See my previous post for what I think is a good criterion for what constitutes research into a specific theory. I'll be happy to hear critiques of that thesis (it was kind of off the top of my head, so it may not be entirely accurate...I'm a slow thinker)KRiS_Censored_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

My understanding of research as it pertains to any specific theory is that the research is supposed to explore specific claims of that theory. In other words, the results of the research should, at least potentially, have an outcome that is uniquely predicted by the theory being researched. This should not be confused with general research where no particular claims are being tested. Rather this type of research is being done so as to get raw data for use in existing, or possibly even new theories. This kind of research can, and is, used by any and all theoretical scientists as applicable, but isn't really considered research into a specific theory. (Please note that while I think that a lot of evolution research is actually being done, lots of other so called evolution research actually falls more into this category) The basic claim being addressed here is that there is no real research being conducted for which a specific outcome can be considered to have been uniquely predicted by ID. If the outcome predicted by ID is likely to occur even if ID is untrue, then it's not considered ID specific research. For instance, research into claims such as "This organism will not generate new FCSI within x number of generations," (an oft repeated prediction of ID, though I've given it a specific limitation to make it at least feasible as a research project) do not have an outcome that can be considered unique to ID. This is because current theory works on such large timescales that a negative outcome (FCSI is not generated) is likely to be seen anyway. In other words an ID confirming outcome is likely to happen even if ID is untrue. The question then becomes, is there any research being done now or in the past, the results of which are uniquely predicted by ID and unlikely to occur if ID is untrue? (Note: This isn't a rhetorical question. I genuinely don't know)KRiS_Censored_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

As per Collin's suggestion, yes please do what he suggested. I've never heard that and I'd like to hear why it was done. Getting blocked by prejudices beyond one's control hardly makes the argument of "There's no research papers" a compelling or honest argument.lcd_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Also, you could briefly outline Walter Remine's experience in trying to publish his paper on Haldane's dilemma. It's one of the best examples of good research getting blocked for no good reason.Collin_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

I think that this is a good FAQ. I would like to see 2 improvements 1. List some of the best research (maybe make a point that some of it gets published in engineering and math journals) 2. I wish the tone was a little less argumentative.Collin_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

That's great! Where can I find them? I have a mini debate at work with a co-worker who continually tells me there is no research from ID scientist. I can hardly wait to show him that is not the case.lcd_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

bFast wrote: "Certainly if there were a larger ID research program, for instance, “junk dna” would have received much more study." I'm not sure I understand why this would be the case. What is it about ID theory that would direct research in this area? Are there any self-described ID researchers who are actively investigating this?ppb_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

The problem that I always encounter with people who believe that ID does not carry out or publish scientific research is: They believe that if research was published in a scientific journal, and they disagree with the conclusions, then it was not scientific research and it was not published in a scientific journal (anyone else scratching their heads out there?). That is: They leap into the question of whether the conclusions are correct without realizing that the original question has been settled. ID conducts scientific research, as the publication of this research blatantly proves.QuadFather_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

I have made this point several times before and it is never commented on but I will repeat it here. When Michael Behe was asked what type of research would help prove his thesis as outlined in the Edge of Evolution, he pointed to the research of Lenski at Michigan State on bacteria evolution. As I said before Lenski would cringe if he knew he was doing ID research but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe's thesis. This research is not called ID research but it is totally consistent with ID objectives and theory. So why is this not ID research? Just because the researchers themselves deny? But you as an ID researcher would do the exact same thing and label it as ID research. I then made the comment that the extension of Lenski's research to multi-celled organisms would also be classified as ID research. Has all the research on fruit flies not fit into the the Behe ID paradigm, of investigating as many reproductive events as possible to determine what macro evolutionary events have happened. While not up there with bacteria, fruit flies probably have had the most multi-celled events looked at. What are the results and why isn't each study that looked at changes not been an ID study looking for the limitations or the edge of evolution. Taking this one step further, why isn't every genome mapping and comparison not an ID study into the limitations or edge of evolution with the species under study. I know this is not what people want to showcase as ID research but if ID had the money and wanted to verify or disprove Behe's thesis how would one do it other than to map the genomes, compare them to others and then try to determine how each system arose. This is long tedious research and is being done by biologists all over the world. Are they not doing ID research?jerry_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
Moreover, it is important to remember that biological research, when properly done, is an example of science at its best: an impartial search for true data and explanations about our world, based on empirical evidence. Such findings are “owned” neither by darwinists nor by IDists. For, at the end of the day, good scientific research is good scientific research, period.
While this is undoubtedly true. That said, one's guiding hypothesis does determine which aspects of biology to focus on. Certainly if there were a larger ID research program, for instance, "junk dna" would have received much more study. If scientist did not feel "certain" about their theory, they would spend millions, yea billions, like the physicists do to validate the theory when conflicting data shows up. Consider, for instance, the study where mice have major highly conserved DNA regions knocked out. If scientist were not certain of their theory, they would be quick to put it to an extensive test by having a large population of regular and DNA deleted mice competing in a natural environment. Failure of the natural mice to dominate over the DNA deleted mice would be highly damning of the theory. On the flip side, however, some interesting work has been done in simple RNA replication. This work would likely never be pursued if ID were as dominant as neo-Darwinism currently is.bFast_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

No true Scotsman... One of the loudest arguments these days, it seems.Jack Golightly_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply