Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote |
It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.
|
There wasn't. If it had been suggested to do that, there's no way I would have agreed to appear. Public policy is a debatable topic. If the IDC people want to convince the scientific community that they have a good idea, there is a known process for doing that. So far, they have done very little in that regard. They have spent their energy and effort working on public policy.
| Quote |
As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started
|
Only to IDC cheerleaders.
| Quote |
Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks? |
Hmm. How am I supposed to respond to that: "I am not a crank!" ? Certainly none of the DI IDC advocates could reasonably be accused of objectively considering IDC. Which leaves the burden of objectively evaluating IDC claims to folks who who write books like this and like this.
 
Let's see, I was in court for this segment of testimony, and it seemed distinctly cranky to me:
| Quote |
Q. So scientists have been looking at and do know a certain amount about the evolution of biochemical pathways, and that's reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature?
A. Adaptive responses for sure and looking at sequence comparisons of highly conserved pathways like glycolysis or the Krebs cycle. But in terms of the origin of those, we don't have a good history of it.
Q. Well, take a moment to look at what has been marked as P-842.
A. Got it.
Q. You've seen this paper before, haven't you?
A. I have. I think this was in my deposition.
Q. And these are some research from the Air Force Research Laboratory who did some work on the biochemical pathway by which certain bacteria breakdown a substance called DNT?
A. Correct. It's very important.
Q. That's like TNT, except this is dinitroluene, correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. These researchers, this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you look on -- at figure 1, which is on page 113. And Matt, perhaps if you can bring that up for us. These researchers, based on their own original data, have published the organization and evolution of the bacteria that breaks down DNT?
A. Right. This is an adaptational response.
Q. And that's a DNT -- this process by which these bacteria breakdown DNT, that's a biochemical pathway?
A. Correct.
Q. So we do have published information in this scientific literature about the evolution of biochemical pathways?
A. Steve, you're extrapolating from the data here. I mean, not all these enzymes evolved specifically to break down this compound. I mean, you're mixing and matching enzymes, I'm sure, from pathways that had some other property.
Q. You're not disagreeing with these scientists from the Air Force Research Academy, are you, Dr. Minnich?
A. This is an adaptational response, okay. This is microevolution. I have no problem with that. That's not what we're discussing. These enzymes were present. You probably modified one or brought some in by lateral gene transfer from another system that can attack these problems. I mean, this is critical.
The Air Force is working on this because TNT reservoirs in their munitions dumps are a problem for environment. And, yes, we can take organisms that -- and adapt them by selective pressure to modify enzymes that they have and attack these compounds. I have no problem with that.
Q. Well, you're the one who said, we lack intermediate structures, and now -- and you specifically mentioned subcellular organelles and biochemical pathways, and now we've seen literature that's in the scientific literature that addresses these points exactly. And if I understand your testimony, it's just not -- we just don't know enough to satisfy you that natural selection can drive the evolutionary process?
A. I don't think you understand my position, okay. I mean, this is an adaptational response. This entire pathway didn't evolve to specifically attack this substraight, all right. There was probably a modification of two or three enzymes, perhaps cloned in from a different system that ultimately allowed this to be broken down.
I mean, I've got good colleagues in my own department that are working on the same problem. And I don't think they pretend to know that the evolution of the pathway from start to finish in their system.
|
And under oath, even.
Back to FtK.
| Quote | Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.
|
More "blotnik". Imagine that, IDC people not owning up to the debate that has happened. Just like I was talking about. Thanks for giving us a live demonstration of that.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
