Intelligent Design

Sea Urchin Design

Spread the love

A colleague wrote [my emphasis]:

The S. purpuratus genome will help us “understand on sight the logic functions they execute in response to the sets of transcription factors in given cells at given times.” “The sea urchin genome will directly contribute to solving the principles of design of gene regulatory networks for embryonic development.” “Such principles can only be obtained by comparing network architecture in different animals developing in similar or different ways.” “The genome will not only provide the ‘code’ for development but will also contribute to linkage between gene regulatory networks and the actual realization of developmental events.” “It remains to connect the genes that execute these functions to the control circuitry that specifies their occurrence.”[1]

1. All quotes in this paragraph are from column 3 on page 939 of Davidson EH. 2006. The sea urchin genome: Where will it lead us? Science 314:939-940.

Good grief. Could Davidson be any more inadvertently candid in regard to life being designed? It hardly seems possible. I’m surprised Science accepted this for publication with that language in it.

7 Replies to “Sea Urchin Design

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    Davidson (if this is presumably Eric Davidson) was the one who recently echoed Gould’s words: “Neo-Darwinism is Dead”.

  2. 2
    idnet.com.au says:

    It is my contention that most of what appears in the molecular biological and molecular genetics literature actually supports design. Often they insert a “isn’t evolution wonderful” statement somewhere to encourage the faithful not to draw the obvious design inference.

  3. 3
    DaveScot says:

    Often they insert a “isn’t evolution wonderful” statement somewhere to encourage the faithful not to draw the obvious design inference.

    I call that “the secret handshake”. It’s a gratuitous, obligatory mention of how your experimental result, observation, or hypothesis fits the Theory of Evolution. If you fail to give the secret handshake your paper won’t pass peer review in any “respectable” journal. That’s how science works now. You have to go along to get along. Don’t rock the boat. The Theory of Evolution is as well tested as gravity so it can’t possibly be wrong except in only the very fine details.

  4. 4
    Sladjo says:

    Repet after me, ten times: biological design is an illusion, biological design is an illusion, biological design is an illusion…

    Then again, repeat after me, twenty times: evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact…

    I live in Romania, so I know very well what a dictatorship really means.. We had 50 years of hard-core communism, with a dictator (Ceausescu) who was no better than Kim Jong-Il, which now rules over North Korea. And I remember those days quite well: if the scientists of that time would have to write a (scientific) paper, they usually inserted few paragraphs about how thankful they are to the Communist Party and it’s leader…

    It’s amazing (and frightening) how this thing with evolution works exactly the same as a communist dictatorship…

  5. 5
    IDist says:

    #include
    #include

    using namespace std;

    void main()
    {
    string convinced = “no”;

    while (convinced == “no”)
    {
    cout > convinced;
    }
    }

  6. 6
    IDist says:

    I’m not able to post the C code properly 🙁
    sorry for the previous post

  7. 7
    PaV says:

    Sladjo:

    Have you noticed that Global Warming is working the same way, too? I find that frightening myself. We’re witnessing the decline and fall of science itself. Objectivity is being pushed completely to the one side, and subjectivity is beginning to reign more and more. When human beings do not make an effort at comforming to the objective “good”, horrible evil ensues–as you perhaps saw first-hand.

Leave a Reply