sparc
Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007
|
EN&V: ID wins because 13 articles about molecular machines and molecuar clocks don't mention Darwin.
Like in the third cited paper on centrioles (which actually ignores Jonathan Wells's groundbreaking work):
| Quote | The conserved meiosis-specific
HORMA domain proteins are components of specialized chromosomal structures known as axial elements that assemble along the lengths of sister chromatid pairs during meiotic prophase I (12). |
Like the abstract of the Nature article to which the Science Daily report they cite links: | Quote | | We define a molecular mechanism that ensures asymmetric assembly, and we conclude that the basic architecture of SMC–kleisin rings evolved before the emergence of eukaryotes. |
Like the PNAS article to which the Phys.Org report they cite links: | Quote | | By studying vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), we identify the large ribosomal subunit protein rpL40 as requisite for VSV cap-dependent translation but not bulk cellular or internal ribosome entry site–driven translation. This requirement is conserved amongmembers of the orderMononegavirales, including measles virus and rabies virus. |
Like the second PLOS article they mention: | Quote | | The circadian clock has evolved in response to daily changes in temperature and light in the environment. |
And finally like Bruce Alberts who they name as their Anti-ID witness: | Quote | And to what extent has the design of presentday
protein machines been constrained by the long evolutionary
pathway through which the function evolved, rather than being optimally engineered for the function at hand? [...] At least for protein synthesis on the ribosome, the evolutionary history—dating back to an “RNA world”—is
thought to have played a predominant role (Green and Noller, 1997; Wilson and Noller, 1998 [this issue]). [...] those present-day reactions that evolved early in the history of life on the earth (like protein synthesis) should have originated in a cell dominated by RNA catalysis; these reactions might therefore remain relatively inefficient, due to constraints traceable to their evolutionary history. In contrast, those present-day reactions that evolved later (like DNA replication), in a cell dominated by protein catalysis, could be expected to be much more efficient (Alberts, 1986). |
ETA:
Whom do they want to fool? Are they really unaware that evolution theory penetrates any filed of biology and thus is implicit in the majority of biological publications.
But what would one expect from guys who thaught deleting "creation" from "Of Pandas and People" would suffice to convince Judge Jones.
Edited by sparc on Feb. 19 2013,02:14
--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."
- William Dembski -
|
