Intelligent Design News

Longtime commenter Bob O’H preens himself at the expense of the Biologic Institute

Spread the love

With unclear results. You be the judge. Here is the comment stream:

Bob O’H:

Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can’t see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas.

As for the Biologic Institute, they list 4 publications from 2014, 2 of them in Bio-Complexity: in the same time period I published 8 papers. That’s really not a lot for the investment put in: there are 5 people listed as working at the Biologic Institute: 3 of them are on one paper from this year, the other 3 papers are by members with affiliations elsewhere. Over the last couple of years the results seem similar. Frankly, any research institute should be able to do better than 1 paper for every 5 scientific staff.

Note: Commenters have weighed in on various claims made by various other commenters, but the News desk was principally interested in the claim about lack of productivity. We’d heard elsewhere that the rate at Biologic Institute was not unreasonably slow, given the constraints of private funding and targeted hostility. So…

News:

Bob O’H at 3, I ran your comments by a researcher who said, “If Bob O H is part of a large group, and gets his name appended to all papers produced by that group he could have 8 papers. No single researcher can turn out that many at a time by himself. Not in biology.”

On the other hand, you could be unusually productive. You may perhaps be willing to provide a list of the papers.

In any event, it seems that the Biologic Institute list contains only some of the publications of some of the fellows (“a selected list”) – presumably the ones of most general interest to readers and supporters.

Bob O’H:

News – my list of papers is here. Most of it is done in collaboration, but I’m only one person, whereas the Biologic Institute is much larger than me. I’d also point out that the BI is “a large group”, so I’d expect it to be producing many more papers than I do.

If the list is only of select publications, can you get a complete list of publications from them?

So the knowledgeable person was requested to look at the linked list, and got back.

News:

Bob O’H at 16: I ran your list by someone who knows a bit of the background of BI, and their response was:

He’s ducking the issue. He has many more than 5 collaborators. I can’t even say how many without looking up the papers themselves (when there are more than three they get listed as et al). So he needs to compare apples to apples. At the BI, 2 papers are divided by 5 people to his 8 papers divided by at least 23 people.

If he wants to count apples.

We’ll see what he comes up with next.

Of course he doesn’t want to count apples! He wants to discredit and obliterate the Biologic Institute.

Like many of Darwin’s followers, he tends to inflate his own cred and disparage that of others. Here’s a prediction in no danger of being disconfirmed: No matter what happens in the coming years, that’ll continue. And there are always “aren’t I good?” girls, anxious to applaud.

As you can tell, it’s a slow news weekend. Luck of the dates this year. Got some good stuff coming up very soon though.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

43 Replies to “Longtime commenter Bob O’H preens himself at the expense of the Biologic Institute

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I’d like to congratulate Bob on his publication record.

  2. 2
    DATCG says:

    Example of one of his papers…

    Still measuring faces in Germany

    Does this methodology work better than Craniology?

    Turned out so well for Hitler and eugenics. Certainly good way to krank out a paper I guess.

    Fortunately a short, stout, often depressed, cigar-smoking Churchill and wheelchair bound Roosevelt defeated the socialist, eugenics-crazed fanatic of Germany. An ironic twist of fate.

    I’d like to postulate young, good looking people get more lead roles in Hollywood by measuring their faces from headshots.

    Can I get a research grant?

  3. 3
    velikovskys says:

    news:
    We’d heard elsewhere that the rate at Biologic Institute was not unreasonably slow, given the constraints of private funding and targeted hostility.

    So excuses aside, the claim that ID has contributed to scientific knowledge is false, at least with regard to published papers.

  4. 4
    Zachriel says:

    Some very interesting papers — the one about Finnish faces especially.

  5. 5
    News says:

    Okay, I’m a newser, not a scientist. Are you people telling me that the guy’s job is measuring faces?

    Well, let’s face it … 😉

    I don’t know what velikovskys is talking about. The question raised, and discussed, concerned relative speed of paper production, not impact.

    We can certainly discuss impact. One constraint is that there are a number of ways of measuring it.

    We can count on Darwin’s followers to disagree with any measurement that demonstrates impact.

    So we can measure it, but not include them in the conversation at the same time.

    Incidentally, the eugenics gibe at 2 risks Godwin’s law unless Bob O’H confirms that his intent is eugenic in character. Perhaps he will tell us later.

  6. 6
    DATCG says:

    #5 News… a bit of sarcasm ; -) duly noted.

  7. 7
    DATCG says:

    ID – Intelligent Design as operational science has been contributing to science 24 hours a day around the world for thousands of years. From shepherd’s breeding sheep to Mendel, to today’s latest engineers of cellular technology.

    One does not need to believe in Darwinian religious history(Tree of Life) to perform operational genetics or design new cellular functions, hearts, organs or to study regenerative medicine. The Design Heuristic is the more profitable, productive paradigm going forward…

    Design, Design, Design

    “What I cannot create, I do not understand.” That’s a nice opening. It focuses the reader on what we often say: intelligent design is not a science stopper, it’s a science starter. If you want to understand how cells work, try to create one.

  8. 8
    velikovskys says:

    news:
    I don’t know what velikovskys is talking about. The question raised, and discussed, concerned relative speed of paper production, not impact.

    And the reason that that speed is important is it’s relation to the impact ID has had which is Bob’s point which you included in your post.

    ” Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can’t see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas.”

  9. 9
    velikovskys says:

    Datcg:
    One does not need to believe in Darwinian religious history(Tree of Life) to perform operational genetics or design new cellular functions, hearts, organs or to study regenerative medicine. The Design Heuristic is the more profitable, productive paradigm going forward…

    Except for the fact there is no design heuristic without knowledge of what is designed,how the design is implemented and some knowledge of the capabilities of the designer.

  10. 10
    wd400 says:

    I don’t think Bob was “preening” himself — he didn’t present himself as being unusually productive. He just asked where the impact was, and it seems to be absent.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    First, it’s not difficult to check my papers: the link I gave has links to all of them. I had 33 collaborators. The BI lists 13 people on their page, and these are all capable of collaborating with other researchers (and indeed on the 4 papers listed for the BI in 2014 there are 11 authors, 5 of whom aren’t listed as members of the BI). Now, I don’t think I’m especially productive: perhaps more so than most at my level of seniority, but also perhaps less. However, the BI has 5 members listed as working at the BI, plus 8 more associates members. So they have 13 times as many people as me, including 3 senior staff. I would expect them to be producing more papers than I am in a year: there is so much more man-power and financing (I just get my salary and a couple of thousand euros for travel).

    it was pointed out that the BI might not be listing all of its papers. If not I’d hope someone would be able to produce a complete list, so we can get a better comparison. I hope for the Disco Institute’s sake that the list on the BI’s pages isn’t complete: if my institute had been as productive as that we would have been shut down.

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can’t see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas.

    We have picked up and are using their ideas.

    Also if ID is right then with respect to biological organisms there is more than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. I would think that would be very important, vital even, to biology.

  13. 13
    Joe says:

    velikovskys:

    Except for the fact there is no design heuristic without knowledge of what is designed,…

    True and ID’s methodology helps in making that determination.

    …how the design is implemented and some knowledge of the capabilities of the designer.

    That is patently false. We still don’t know how the Antikythera Mechanism was designed and built. And we know someone was capable of designing and building it because it exists and can be examined.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to science itself, Darwinism is useless as a heuristic in science,

    Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
    Philip Skell
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    ,,,besides Darwinism being useless as a heuristic in science, Darwinism has been a major roadblock to scientific discovery. No where is this ‘roadblock’ to scientific progress more clear than the claim by Darwinists, despite much experimental evidence to the contrary, that most of the genome is junk.

    On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. – Richard Sternberg – 2002
    Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679

    Matheson’s Intron Fairy Tale – Richard Sternberg – June 2010
    Excerpt: “The failure to recognize the importance of introns “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
    –John Mattick, Molecular biologist, University of Queensland, quoted in Scientific American,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35301.html

    Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds “Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome” – Casey Luskin September 5, 2012
    Excerpt: according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney. “We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64001.html

    Biological Information – (The Dan Graur incident) Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVk

    The following paper is a prime example of Darwinian dogmatism trying to derail objective, experimental, science.

    DNA mostly ‘junk?’ Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is ‘functional’, study finds – July 24, 2014
    Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution — a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141608.htm

    So according to the preceding paper that was published by Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, a massive study which found widespread functionality for practically 100% of the supposed ‘junk’ DNA, (by direct experimentation no less), functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional, only ‘conservation of sequence’ in a presupposed evolutionary lineage determines what is functional in the genome???,
    Thus, apparently, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true from the outset will the preceding Darwinists be willing to accept that a given sequence of ‘junk’ DNA in the gemone may be functional!,,
    Experimental evidence apparently takes a back seat to Darwinian presuppositions in ‘Darwinian science ‘for them!
    What they are doing is called ‘assuming your conclusion into your premise’ and is in fact completely antithetical to the whole scientific endeavor.
    The most trusted theories in science, such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, got to their exalted status by passing rigorous experimental challenge.
    Darwinists, on the other hand, as is made evident with the Junk DNA fiasco, try to protect their theory from any rigorous experimental challenge.
    I would have never believed that ‘science’, as it is practiced by Darwinists, could become so perverted if I had not seen the episode play out myself.

    Whereas, the presupposition of Intelligent Design, instead of being a roadblock to scientific research as Darwinism currently is, provides a fruitful catalyst for scientific discovery. Especially in regards to biological research:

    “It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.”
    David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design

    podcast: “David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_09-07_00

    podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_01-07_00

    And Intelligent Design, instead of trying to make experimental evidence secondary to theory as Darwinism does, invites attempts to try to falsify its primary claim by experiment (as other robust theories of science do):

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, Darwinian reasoning, to the extent it has influenced (i.e. impacted) the policies of any government, has had a tremendously horrible impact on society at large.

    The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World – Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    The Biology of the Second Reich: Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War 1 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n900e80R30

    From Darwin To Hitler – Richard Weikart – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

    Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin’s Latest Biographer — and a Pretty Devastating One – David Klinghoffer – October 14, 2012
    Excerpt: “Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief,” were students of Darwin, ,,,
    Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection “to its logical conclusion.” “Leading Communists,” moreover, “from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung” considered evolution “essential to the self-respect of Communists. … Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power.”
    Even Stalin,, “had Darwin’s ‘struggle’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ in mind” when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,,
    ,,the “emotional stew” Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century’s genocides.,,,
    No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin “for millions of deaths.” But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin’s theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences — well, that’s obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein).
    There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65281.html

    In fact, although everybody with an ounce of common sense knows that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was objectively evil, Darwinists, in their materialistic worldview, lack the ethical moorings necessary to condemn the holocaust as objectively evil:

    Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? – Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52331.html

  16. 16
    Axel says:

    Well, what have you got to say for yourselves, Darwinists? After BA77’s demolition of your Darwinian fantasising.

  17. 17
    News says:

    Bob O’H at 11 is doubtless superior to his colleagues and an inspiration to us all. Happy New Year all!

  18. 18
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77 (quoting): Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution.

    Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.

    Axel: Well, what have you got to say for yourselves, Darwinists? After BA77?s demolition of your Darwinian fantasising.

    We stopped reading after the first example, which was a misfire.

  19. 19
    RexTugwell says:

    Darwin’s Doubt is #1 in the Paleontology category at Amazon. I’d say that ID books are making quite an impact. No?

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    as to Zach’s claim, (which is directly contrary to the claim that Dr. Skell himself gave):

    “Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected”

    Actually antibiotic resistant bacteria, contrary to what Zach falsely believes to be true, and although touted as proof for Darwinian evolution for decades, turns out to be proof of Intelligent Design.
    First and foremost, antibiotic resistance is gained by the bacteria by the bacteria degrading a preexisting molecular function instead of ever evolving a new molecular function:

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    This degradation of preexisting molecular function in antibiotic resistant bacteria is clearly seen in the ‘fitness cost’ to the bacteriaa:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU

    Helping an Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – May 3, 2014
    Excerpt: antibiotic resistance entails very small-scale degrees of biological change.,,,
    antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to “revert” to their prior forms after the antibacterial drug is removed. This is due to a “fitness cost,” which suggests that mutations that allow antibiotic resistance are breaking down the normal, efficient operations of a bacterial cell, and are less “advantageous.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85171.html

    In fact, contrary to Darwinian claims, antibiotic resistance is found to be ‘hard wired’ into bacteria:

    A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution – September 2011
    Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
    http://crev.info/content/11090....._evolution

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

    The Diseaseome Could Take Medicine Beyond the Genome By Cynthia Graber on Thu, 09 Oct 2014
    Excerpt: Today, antibiotic resistance is thought to emerge because, scientists have believed, there are a few bacteria in a given community that are naturally resistant to a drug, and they thrive after the drug kills off the bacteria’s brethren. But instead, as Collins’ research has demonstrated, antibiotics themselves induce mutations, leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.,,,
    “Biology is complicated,” Collins says. The idea that scientists and drug companies can target all the physical expressions of a disease by going after just one gene is mostly wishful thinking, he notes,,,
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/n.....-medicine/

    Thus, contrary to Zach’s claim, and contrary to what is popularly believed, antibiotic resistance offers no support for Darwinian claims (since no new molecular functions are generated in gaining resistance) and in fact antibiotic resistance offers evidence for Intelligent Design since antibiotic resistance is found to be ‘hard wired’ into bacteria for as far back in time as has thus far been measured.

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.

    Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are NOT intimately connected to Darwinian nor neo-Darwinian evolution.

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    You should have known better than to try to put one over on BA77, Zack ! Let that be a lesson to you… And all you Darwinian evolutionaries.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: antibiotic resistance offers no support for Darwinian claims (since no new molecular functions are generated in gaining resistance)

    New “molecular functions” are not required for evolution to occur. What made you think that?

    In any case, the development of modern antibiotics is very dependent evolutionary theory because of the evolution of drug-resistant bacterial strains.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, I don’t play equivocation games with the word ‘evolution’. Breaking preexisting molecular functions in order to gain an advantage is certainly not the evidence you need to substantiate your claim that molecules can randomly turn into man.
    It would be nice for you to be honest and admit at least that much! But alas, I given up hope that you ever will be honest with anything, not even something as simple as that!

    Moreover, the development of new antibiotic drugs, and other drugs that fight infection, is far more dependent on accurately measuring, and utilizing, the ‘LIMITS’ for what unguided material processes can do (such as Dr. Behe has done in his book ‘The Edge Of Evolution’), than it has ever been dependent on the unsubstantiated atheistic belief that all life arose via unguided material processes.

    Here is research of a promising new antibiotic that could, singly, or perhaps in combination with other antibiotics, surpass Dr. Behe’s 2 protein-protein binding site limit, i.e. ‘The Edge of Evolution’:

    New class of antibiotics discovered by chemists – March 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Researchers who screened 1.2 million compounds found that the oxadiazole inhibits a penicillin-binding protein, PBP2a, and the biosynthesis of the cell wall that enables MRSA to resist other drugs.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....165953.htm

    Of related note to developing an antibiotic that is beyond Dr. Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’, ‘drug cocktails’ seem to surpass the 2 protein-protein binding site limit that Dr. Behe found for the ‘edge of evolution’

    Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014
    Excerpt: If there were a second drug with the efficacy of chloroquine which had always been administered in combination with it (but worked by a different mechanism), resistance to the combination would be expected to arise with a frequency in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^40 — a medical triumph.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89161.html

    Moreover, the multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’, being beyond what unguided material processes can accomplish, that Dr. Behe has elucidated:

    When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.
    But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.,,,
    it “costs” a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.,,,
    This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients’ virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....edicine_04

    Thus contrary to what you may believe Zach, effective drugs are effective precisely because the drug(s) take advantage of what unguided material processes CANNOT accomplish, not because of what unguided material processes are falsely imagined to accomplish in the unfettered imagination of Darwinists.

    Of note: since I know you like to waste hours and hours trying to argue over pointless facts, I will respond no more to you regarding this thread.

  25. 25
    Graham2 says:

    The bottom line appears to be:

    * The BI, a significant source (the only source) of ID ‘research’ produces a grand total of 4 papers per year.

    That’s it. The new paradigm that is taking over evolution and revolutionizing Science produces 4 papers per year. 4 papers per year. In the whole world, 4 papers per year.

    On another thread I asked again and again: what has ID produced, and got blather, obfuscation, and oil-soaked flaming straw-man red herrings.

    So we are left with … 4 papers per year.

  26. 26
    sparc says:

    More interesting than the BI’s publication records are their findings they didn’t publish: Ann Gauger reported on the Wistar II conference that evolutionary processes do indeed work to make bacteria overcome experimental constraints set by her.

  27. 27
    Bob O'H says:

    Oh, I just realised I should respond to this:

    He [i.e. me] wants to discredit and obliterate the Biologic Institute.

    This is false. One of the things that intrigues me about ID is that its researcher want it to be a science, so we should be able to watch them build it up from its proto-science beginnings. I would expect the Biologic Institute to be a part of that, and I’m actually supportive of it endeavouring to do that (even though I’m not an ID supporter).

    I’m actually disappointed by the Biologic Institute and its output. Far from wanting it obliterated, I actually want it to be stronger, and to be doing and publishing more research, of a high quality.

  28. 28
    Joe says:

    In any case, the development of modern antibiotics is very dependent baraminology because of the evolution of drug-resistant bacterial strains and the bacteria are still bacteria.

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: I don’t play equivocation games with the word ‘evolution’.

    Good. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. That’s how the term is used. There is a huge amount of literature on the subject, such as Luria–Delbrück 1943.

    bornagain77: Breaking preexisting molecular functions in order to gain an advantage is certainly not the evidence you need to substantiate your claim that molecules can randomly turn into man.

    That wasn’t the claim, but that the development of modern antibiotics depends on an understanding of how bacteria evolve. Please try to keep track of the conversation.

    Moreover, not all resistance mechanism involve “breaking” something. Some resistance works by attacking the antibiotic, for instance. Or by pumping the antibiotic out of the cell.

  30. 30
    drc466 says:

    Zachriel,

    In post 29, you state “bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics”. In the sense that “bacteria change and show variety, some of which changes and variations are resistant to antibiotics”, this is a truism that no one on either side of this conversation denies.

    However, in post 18, in response to ba77’s claim that antibiotic resistance in bacteria receives no insights from Darwinian evolution, you said “Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.” Now, either you were attempting to contradict him by equating change in bacteria to Darwinian evolution, or you were making a pointless aside.

    This is why ba77 told you he doesn’t play equivocation games with the words “evolution” and “evolve” – you obviously do. Research into the “evolution” of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is unrelated to, and doesn’t benefit from, whether “Evolution” is an accurate description of the historical development of life from a single common ancestor.

  31. 31
    Mung says:

    It’s interesting how much of the debate over ID is interconnected.

    If ID is science, then it cannot be a “god of the gaps” argument. But ID is a “god of the gaps” argument, therefore it cannot be science.

  32. 32
    Joe says:

    Perhaps the argument is better stated:

    Science deals in testable hypotheses.

    Unguided evolution ideas as yet do not include testable hypotheses.

    Unguided evolution is not yet science.

    OTOH Intelligent Design posits testable entailments, ie something that can actually be tested and either be confirmed or falsified.

  33. 33
    Joe says:

    That wasn’t the claim, but that the development of modern antibiotics depends on an understanding of how bacteria evolve.

    Bacteria evolving into bacteria is what is posited by baraminology. Geez, do try to keep up.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    Bob O’H:

    One of the things that intrigues me about ID is that its researcher want it to be a science, so we should be able to watch them build it up from its proto-science beginnings.

    Right now the IDists who are also researchers just want to be able to conduct scientific research and be able to reach a design inference if that is what the evidence leads to, which it does.

    One of the things that intrigues me about unguided evolution is that its researchers want it to be a science, so we should be able to watch them build it up from its proto-science beginnings. And we are still waiting.

  35. 35
    Bob O'H says:

    Mung @31 –

    If ID is science, then it cannot be a “god of the gaps” argument. But ID is a “god of the gaps” argument, therefore it cannot be science.

    In some ways that encapsulates the problem i have with ID. At the moment it looks nothing more than a “god of the gaps” argument. To some extent that’s OK: you have to start somewhere. But the next step has to go beyond that, and to start making positive predictions about the designs it detects (e.g. what sorts of thing are designed, or who is the designer). ID, though, never gets that far.

  36. 36
    Zachriel says:

    drc466: In post 29, you state “bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics”. In the sense that “bacteria change and show variety, some of which changes and variations are resistant to antibiotics”, this is a truism that no one on either side of this conversation denies.

    That’s what we mean by evolution, more particularly, Darwinian evolution is the selection of inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to survive and reproduce, which certainly applies in the case of bacterial antibiotic resistance.

    drc466: However, in post 18, in response to ba77?s claim that antibiotic resistance in bacteria receives no insights from Darwinian evolution, you said “Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.” Now, either you were attempting to contradict him by equating change in bacteria to Darwinian evolution, or you were making a pointless aside.

    Yes, Darwinian evolution, meaning evolution by natural selection.

  37. 37
    Joe says:

    Bob, ID includes testable entailments. And the designer is a separate question.

  38. 38
    hrun0815 says:

    I really don’t understand this griping about collaborators. Of course Bob has many collaborators. The vast majority of studies these days are collaborations.

    Why do the people of the BI collaborate.many people here are quick to point out how many researchers are ID friendly. And many point to publications all the time that are supposedly pro ID. Heck, there are folks that claim virtually all of Sys Bio is ID research. Maybe the question that should be answered is not the scant output of research papers but the inability to collaborate other than in this terribly incestuous way.

  39. 39

    Looks like BI is right on target. You know what famous scientist JBS Haldane said about it:
    “Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
    -J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
    Which is sometimes rephrased as 5 stages of a scientific theory:Total Nonsense. 2) Dangerous Nonsense. 3) Perversely false; 4) Trivially true; 5) Obviously correct.

    I think we are now debated BI papers as (4). In a few short months, we may even make it to (5).

  40. 40

    Looks like BI is right on target. You know what famous scientist JBS Haldane said about it:
    “Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
    -J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
    Which is sometimes rephrased as 5 stages of a scientific theory: 1)Total Nonsense; 2) Dangerous Nonsense; 3) Perversely false; 4) Trivially true; 5) Obviously correct.

    I think we are now debating the BI papers as if they were (4). In a few short months, we may even make it to (5), and all this talk of “productivity” will be moot. And mute. Mutatis mutandis.

  41. 41
    Joe says:

    Zachriel doesn’t understand evolution:

    That’s what we mean by evolution, more particularly, Darwinian evolution is the selection of inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to survive and reproduce, which certainly applies in the case of bacterial antibiotic resistance.

    No, Zachriel, natural selection eliminates, it does not select. THat is basic stuff and Zachriel gets it wrong.

    Yes, Darwinian evolution, meaning evolution by natural selection.

    Natural selection has proven to be impotent, which means evolution by natural selection is impotent.

  42. 42
    hrun0815 says:

    I think we are now debating the BI papers as if they were (4). In a few short months, we may even make it to (5), and all this talk of “productivity” will be moot. And mute. Mutatis mutandis.

    How about instead of a few short months we give it a year and see if we are at 5) by then. And as for your assessment, I would think that the majority of researchers still considers the BI papers to be stuck at 1).

  43. 43
    wd400 says:

    Even if Haldane’s progression were true, ID being around 1–3 doesn’t mean it will progress to 5. Homeopathy, ESP and astrology have all been in the 1–3 zone for some time and I doubt any will progress. As Carl Sagan said.

    The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Leave a Reply