Activist Attorney Casey Luskin: “there is much positive, research-based evidence for ID”

| 244 Comments

And I’m the Queen of Mexico. Over at Four Dollars, Almost Five, rhiggs has posted a month or more long email exchange with Attorney Casey Luskin on “what scientific data there was to support intelligent design.”

Head on over there and check it out.

244 Comments

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design.

It just depends on the “spin” you put on the data.

Oh, you need an example?

Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Replisomes are the protein assemblies that replicate DNA. They function as molecular motors to catalyze template-mediated polymerization of nucleotides, unwinding of DNA, the synthesis of RNA primers, and the assembly of proteins on DNA. The replisome of bacteriophage T7 contains a minimum of proteins, thus facilitating its study. This review describes the molecular motors and coordination of their activities, with emphasis on the T7 replisome. Nucleotide selection, movement of the polymerase, binding of the processivity factor, unwinding of DNA, and RNA primer synthesis all require conformational changes and protein contacts. Lagging-strand synthesis is mediated via a replication loop whose formation and resolution is dictated by switches to yield Okazaki fragments of discrete size. Both strands are synthesized at identical rates, controlled by a molecular brake that halts leading-strand synthesis during primer synthesis. The helicase serves as a reservoir for polymerases that can initiate DNA synthesis at the replication fork. We comment on the differences in other systems where applicable. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Biochemistry Volume 78 is June 02 2008. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalo[…]ubdates.aspx for revised estimates.

I like that he made this “prediction”:

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

This is the supposed support for this “prediction”:

Similar parts have been found in organisms that even Darwinists see as separated by more closely related forms that do not contain the similar parts in question. Clear examples include genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms whose alleged common ancestors are not thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs.

www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/becbd98b35e8e07260d4e8e92784cbbb/miscdocs/thepositivecasefordesign_v3.pdf

Of course it’s a crock. But we should hold him to this, because it’s really a reasonable prediction of design (either that, or design will be from first principles).

His “support” for the claim involves nothing except “deep homologies,” where, as expected from evolution, similar genetic material is evolutionarily utilized to fit similar demands upon the organism. He’s trying to make something of the fact that similar genes were used but not “similar parts,” even though evolution operates on the genetic level.

Casey was there doing what Behe did in Darwin’s Black Box, noting that a designer could very well use “conceptual precursors” and was not dependent upon “physical precursors,” for making a design.

Unfortunately for both of them, physical precursors (of any great complexity) are used by life, not “conceptual precursors.” Thus Casey has inadvertently demonstrated that life is not designed, unless, that is, they intend not to allow ID to be falsified by actual predictions. And of course they do not, with both Behe and Luskin basically ignoring their “prediction” due to the fact that only physical precursors are to be found in evolution.

Now they blither on about complexity, since evolution passed the test of physical vs. conceptual precursors, and ID did not. They want us to believe that it is inappropriate to test their ideas using their own ID predictions. As best as I could see with a quick scan (and a search), Luskin isn’t using that “argument” in the link given.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design.

It just depends on the “spin” you put on the data.

Coming from someone who only spins data and interpretations, never making a sound case for his claims, Charlie knows what he’s saying.

Of course such “spin” is totally illegitimate, falling outside of all accepted scientific and legal uses of the evidence.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Very nice. *Yawn* The actually hypothesis that needs to be tested for your model to survive is whether any such system could have arisen through natural processes. This is not a matter of “spin.” It is a hypothesis. Falsification of the hypothesis renders the ID model pure, unfalsifiable conjecture – a fairy tale. The outlook is bleak for ID. As many will point out on this post shortly, the mechanisms for the origin of integrated, complex molecular systems is well understood.

And please, your inability or refusal to understand either the models, the data, or the systems does not constitute evidence for design, regardless of the fact that you hold your incomprehension in such high esteem.

Back to doing science.

Charlie Wagner said:

Oh, you need an example?

Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Replisomes are the protein assemblies that replicate DNA. They function as molecular motors to catalyze template-mediated polymerization of nucleotides, unwinding of DNA, the synthesis of RNA primers, and the assembly of proteins on DNA. The replisome of bacteriophage T7 contains a minimum of proteins, thus facilitating its study. This review describes the molecular motors and coordination of their activities, with emphasis on the T7 replisome. Nucleotide selection, movement of the polymerase, binding of the processivity factor, unwinding of DNA, and RNA primer synthesis all require conformational changes and protein contacts. Lagging-strand synthesis is mediated via a replication loop whose formation and resolution is dictated by switches to yield Okazaki fragments of discrete size. Both strands are synthesized at identical rates, controlled by a molecular brake that halts leading-strand synthesis during primer synthesis. The helicase serves as a reservoir for polymerases that can initiate DNA synthesis at the replication fork. We comment on the differences in other systems where applicable. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Biochemistry Volume 78 is June 02 2008. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalo[…]ubdates.aspx for revised estimates.

“Niles Eldredge, a wonderful friend and colleague of mine, is talking about those scientists who derive from zoology. He probably refers to the deliberate intellectual activity that reconciles Mendelian stability with Darwinian gradual change and tries to force it into this procrustean population genetics neo-Darwinism.

Francisco Ayala is presenting at the “evolutionary mechanisms session” in Rome. He was trained in Catholicism, Spanish-style, as a Dominican. We were in California at a meeting with Whiteheadian philosopher John Cobb. At that meeting Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead.

The components of evolution (I don’t think any scientist disagrees) that exist because there’s so much data for them are: (1) the tendency for exponential growth of all populations – that is growth beyond a finite world; and (2) since the environment can’t sustain them, there’s an elimination process of natural selection.

The point of contention in science is here: (3) Where does novelty that’s heritable come from? What is the source of evolutionary innovation? Especially positive inherited innovation, where does it come from?

It is here that the neo-Darwinist knee-jerk reaction kicks in. “By random mutations that accumulate so much that you have a new lineage.” This final contention, their mistake in my view, is really the basis of nearly all our disagreement.

Everybody agrees: Heritable variation exists, it can be measured. Everybody agrees, as Darwin said, it’s heritable variation “that’s important to us” because variation is inherited. Everyone agrees “descent with modification” can be demonstrated. And furthermore, because of molecular biology, everybody agrees that all life on Earth today is related through common ancestry, as Darwin showed.

Everybody agrees with ultimate common ancestry of Earth’s life, because the DNA, RNA messenger, transfer RNA, membrane-bounded cell constituents (lipids, the phospholipids) that we share – they’re all virtually identical in all life today, it’s all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with.

The real disagreement about what the neo-Darwinists tout, for which there’s very little evidence, if any, is that random mutations accumulate and when they accumulate enough, new species originate. The source of purposeful inherited novelty in evolution, the underlying reason the new species appear, is not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes” - Lynn Margulis

Casey Luskin Wrote:

It’s worth noting that ID proponents cite innumerable research studies, even when done by pro-Darwin scientists, as presenting research that predicts intelligent design.

This is called publication high jacking or pubjacking for short.

What it amounts to is “Oh, others did all the work and research, but we will tell you what it all means.”

And this from people who built an institute that deals in political propaganda, and which is made up of “fellows” who have so many serious misconceptions about scientific concepts that they couldn’t interpret the meaning of a two-by-four that smacked them directly in the face.

Charlie Wagner said:

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design.

There may be thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year that do not contradict ID, but there have been none that actually test it.

what the neo-Darwinists tout

translation from lame-brain into english:

“This is now my strawman, stolen from Lynn Margulis, hope you don’t notice.”

typical. Standard CW.

We already had this “debate” with Margulis, who is far more intelligent than yourself, Charlie.

She lost.

There may be thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year that do not contradict ID, but there have been none that actually test it.

nor can there be, until Charlie stops lying about on his ass and continues his search for the “Designer”.

Go on Charlie, scoot!

Charlie Wagner said: Oh, you need an example?

Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Does the term “intelligent design” appear in the article?

In fact, what Charlie failed to notice, is that if he is going to claim all publications that utilize terms like “designed”, or “motor” in them, then we can basically claim the millions of papers that don’t use those terms to act as support for there being no designer.

via argumentum ad populum then, there is no designer.

until Charlie stops lying about on his ass and continues his search for the “Designer”.

Would that I could!

I’m a paraplegic (fancy word for “cripple”) confined to bed and wheelchair.

But how bould you know that?

Paul Burnett said:

Charlie Wagner said: Oh, you need an example?

Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Does the term “intelligent design” appear in the article?

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

Dear Charlie (and Casey Luskin if you happen to read this),

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures, DNA sequence, etc. This is not a “spin” question at all - when you submit a hypothesis-driven biology paper for peer review, the first thing you get grilled on is the mechanism. So…how is the designer working? If there’s no mechanism, you’re discussing theology.

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

I would hear it for sure, Richardson’s lab is an easy walk from where I am. I did the same thing regarding an article that was cited at Uncommon Descent. The response was actually quite calm; he noted that his work was typically cited as strong support for evolution, and “…the last thing one could say, is that it provides supposrt for ID.” Expect something similar.

Charlie -

Intelligent Design advocates have had more than twenty years to get genuine peer-reviewed scientific research supporting ID published BUT HAVE NOT DONE SO:

Charlie Wagner said:

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design.

It just depends on the “spin” you put on the data.

Instead of “proof” of ID, I respectfully submit that there is ample proof instead for the validity of Klingon Cosmology. How? Here’s how:

1) You see Klingons on TV and in the movies, so they must be real. Right?

2) An official Klingon Language Institute exists.

3) People conduct religious ceremonies, including weddings, speaking Klingon.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

In stark contrast, what “proof” does ID have as something that is scientifically or culturally valid? None (Moreover, best of all, Klingon Cosmology is consistent with modern evolutionary theory.).

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you?

He’d never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn’t have tenure, he probably won’t get it.

““Strong I am with the Force, but not that strong.”, - Yoda

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem…You go first!

But how bould you know that?

I wouldn’t, until you just told me.

confined to bed and wheelchair

doesn’t stop you from looking. Hey, I’ll even bet the light is better in your room anyway.

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you?

not if he’s sane, no.

doesn’t stop you from looking. Hey, I’ll even bet the light is better in your room anyway.

I wasn’t trolling for sympathy. It just “struck me kinda funny”. (see Springsteen “Reason to Believe”)

And I have one of those “daylight” lamps they sell on QVC!

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem…You go first!

Primarily, the mechanism of evolution is natural selection and genetic drift, as described in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research papers. Check. Now for ID’s mechanism!

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem…You go first!

We did. You even quoted Lynn Margulis on our testable mechanism, so either you know what it is or you just quote stuff without understanding it.

So what’s your proposed mechanism?

So what’s your proposed mechanism?

I can’t decide between magic and legerdemain.

I tilt towards legerdemain, however!

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you?

This is actually a good question. Most research studies are done with SOME conclusions in mind, and which fit in to SOME theoretical framework. It would be difficult even to frame a hypothesis without such a framework (and indeed, the inability of ANY “creation scientists” now relabeled “ID researchers” to be able to propose a single testable hypothesis reflects this lack of any theoretical framework).

Historically, scientists have freqently risked their careers by taking positions that conflict strongly with the current scientific views but are supported by solid, replicable evidence. One need only reflect on the scientist who swallowed what he believed was a dangerous virus that causes ulcers, in order to demonstrate that ulcers weren’t just caused by “stress” (and sure enough, he got an ulcer!).

Now, not all scientists who have gone out on a limb on the basis of preliminary evidence have been proven correct. Tom Van Flandern suffered professional loss of status, for example. Pons and Fleischmann come to mind. But Lynn Margulis was, at least for a while, vindicated in her unconventional claims.

So I think Charlie doesn’t understand scientists any better than he understands science. They DO, in fact and frequently, embrace unconventional and apparently wrong-headed notions if the evidence is there (in their opinion). They don’t typically avoid promoting what they think is true, on the grounds that doing so risk professional rejection. Some might, but not all.

Charlie here reminds me of Dave Scott’s prediction that Judge Jones would destroy Darwinism on the grounds that Jones was a conservative Republican, appointed by a conservative Republican, whose career was tied to conservative Republicans, who tend to be, uh, less religiously tolerant. Charlie and Dave are similar in that both of them look strictly at the political implications, and totally discount the facts and the merits. (And as I recall, Dave Scott immediately started searching for political reasons for Jones’s otherwise incomprehensible decision. Maybe he had a new patron? Maybe he got paid off? Maybe he misjudged theological trends?)

But what else would we expect? ID is the political arm of religious fundamentalism. To purely political types, facts are what support foregone conclusions. If they don’t they’re not facts.

James F said:

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem…You go first!

Primarily, the mechanism of evolution is natural selection and genetic drift, as described in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research papers. Check.

You forgot to mention genetic variation due to the fact that living organisms have mostly imperfect methods of copying their genomes, allowing mistakes (better known as mutations) to crop up in each successive daughter generation of offspring, too.

Now for ID’s mechanism!

You mean “we, puny mortals will never be able to understand life: evolutionists are evil Nazis, and are wrong because we want them to be: therefore, evidence that GODDESIGNERDIDIT”?

Not much of a mechanism, if you ask me, but, I guess that’s what you get when you belong to a 20+ year old organization that has a 4 million dollar budget, but spends squat of that 4 million on research.

“There is much positive, research-based evidence for ID”??? Actually, there is more negative, research-based evidence against ID. Some of the research that Casey Luskin provides is from the Discovery Institute, and the rest from anti-evolution websites. Also, these ‘research-based evidence’ is the same evidence that has been debunked.

I get news daily on evolution, and none of the news articles indication that they is any real honest research on ID. Actually, there are less reports on ID than about the attacks on the evolution. Luskin and those at Discovery Institute are only damaging Americans understanding of basic scientific concepts.

This is actually a good question. Most research studies are done with SOME conclusions in mind, and which fit in to SOME theoretical framework.

They probably have a theoretical framework but I doubt if it’s darwinism OR intelligent design.

Neither mechanism is addressed in the paper I cited. (Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19.)

I find that most papers I read nowadays describe the data and their conclusions without ever applying it to the “debate”.

Charlie Wagner said:

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you? He’d never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn’t have tenure, he probably won’t get it.

Oh - the authors will get “expelled” if they embrace intelligent design creationism - of course. Is that why out of the thousands of papers published every year that purportedly support intelligent design creationism, not a one of them actually mentions intelligent design creationism?

In fact, I bet that even if the authors specifically wrote “NOTE: This paper does not support intelligent design creationism” you and Casey and the Dishonesty Institute would continue to insist that it did. It’s easy to see how this will play out. That’s a pretty transparently fallacious game plan, Charlie.

Naa, evos are very conformist. Otherwise they get shouted at. See thread.

Dan 787 m. DS 287m Stanton 18m Jebus 600k Jebus Price (my personal savourer) 160.

Must go now. Got Mehican flu.

Oh f—. I forgot about the formatting again.

novparl said:

Check out Foot soldiers who lack vision. The evos are fighting among themselves!

novparl knows that he doesn’t have any reasoning to support his position, so he attempts to change the subject yet again.

The fact that scientists fight among themselves is proof that they are not doctrinaire. We do this in all disciplines of science.

Brilliant putdown! I’m destroyed!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on April 17, 2009 5:06 PM.

Egnor’s war on the Establishment Clause was the previous entry in this blog.

Comments is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter