academic freedom Darwinism Intelligent Design

Nice to see Gunter Bechly’s name on a paper again

Spread the love

Yes, okay, a paper on prehistoric cockroaches”

Abstract: (paywall) Unequivocal palaeontological evidence for viruses is usually absent. A specimen of the extinct predatory cockroach Stavba babkaeva gen. et sp. n. from Cretaceous Myanmar amber (98 Ma) shows symptoms of Deformed Wing Virus infection caused by pathogenic DWV-Iflavirus. The hindwing is undeveloped and both curled forewings are symmetrically deformed, differing from environmentally caused asymmetries known from Pripyat and Fukushima. While some unknown cockroach mutation might have the same symptoms, ontogenetic defects (such as incomplete moulting) differ in complete lack of sclerotization, modified forewing bases and presence on both wings. Post-depositional, taphonomic influence can be excluded due to local character of the deformation (forewings on both sides) while other areas are undeformed. Drying shrinking can be excluded due to brittle character of the wing, which would crack instead – and it could not, be local either. Pathogenic RNA-viruses probably circulated among vertebrates and invertebrate decomposers/predators in the dinosaur-age ecosystems. Our discovery complements an indirect putative evidence of Retrovirus infection that modified dinosaur bones. – Pathogenic DWV infection symptoms in a Cretaceous cockroach Vršanský, Peter; Vršanská, Lucia; Beňo, Milan; Bao, Tong; Lei, Xiaojie; Ren, Xiaojie; Wu, Hao; Šmídová, Lucia; Bechly, Günter; Jun, Lv; Yeo, Melvyn; Jarzembowski, Edmund More.

Readers may remember Gunter Bechly from his getting disappeared from Wikipedia on account of his doubts about Darwin. Nice if concerted efforts to destroy him did not work.

It’s not even just heroes we want to see vindicated but ordinary joes and jills who can go about their business while saying, “I see plenty wrong with the dominant theory today.”

Physicists are allowed that but biologists aren’t. That’s because Darwinism functions very much as a religion for Darwinians, as philosopher Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse: has often pointed out. Doubt about their theory is an attack on their faith.

See also: Gunter Bechly: Ediacaran Fossil Paper Is “Junk Science”

Paleontologist Gunter Bechly Live Tonight On What The Fossil Record Really Tells Us About Common Ancestry

Gunter Bechly: Decline of science? Imaged in a single paragraph

Gunter Bechly: Living fossils under massive attack

Gunter Bechly: New Human Find In The Philippines = New Headache For Darwinism

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID

Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Nice to see Gunter Bechly’s name on a paper again

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    I was told that ID supporters were unpublishable in the scientific literature. Was I misinformed?

  2. 2
    ET says:

    I was told that ID supporters were unpublishable in the scientific literature. Was I misinformed?

    No, you are just unable to read and think. What is said is that pro-ID papers are unpublishable in the evo-run journals.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, you need to face the reality and implications of materialist (and “progressivist”) censorship, linked slander (current case here which gives a transcript of long established facts and here which gives persistent media amplified slander — and no I do not endorse any party involved) and indoctrination in the academy, in the media [traditional, Internet, social] and in education. What that points to as a dominant pattern in our civilisation is sobering. KF

    PS: As a reminder of what you keep refusing to respond to, I again clip on the state of the case by Spring 2017:

    BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF
    PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
    SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
    UPDATED MARCH, 2017

    PART I: INTRODUCTION
    While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

    In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. As of 2015, the peer-reviewed scientific publication count had reached 90. Many of these papers are recent, published since 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

    Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

    Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming ”points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

    Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

    These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Complexity, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Physics Essays, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Bacteriology , Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

    Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

    Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.

    The purpose of ID’s budding research program is thus to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field . . .

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I think Rom 1 has something to say to us:

    Rom 1: 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense. [–> see here]

    21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles . . . .

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity].

    32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them. [AMP]

    Line by line, this predicted and explains our plight as a civilisation in plain black and white for 2,000 years.

    We would do well to heed it.

Leave a Reply