Richard Lenski's evolution research
My first opinion of Schlafly’s behavior was that he was overreacting to Lenski’s work and making a fool of himself in the process. And Lenski is not directly responsible for the way his work is being trumpeted as the salvation of Darwinism. Which I think is hilarious, considering it appears to be a confirmation of Behe’s main thesis if anything else.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/behes-multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827
Also, Lenski never identified the mechanism. He just assumed Darwinism and did not consider other options. In fact, in the past Lenski argued vehemently against directed mutations in general which are now commonly accepted even by most Darwinists (although with the caveat that the mechanisms for "directing" are themselves evolved via unguided/non-foresighted mechanisms). There's also the possibility that a foresighted mechanism was involved...although I personally doubt it due to the slowness of the response to the environment. The point is, with his Darwinist blinders on Lenski does not even want to look.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/first-paragraph-of-lenski-paper-contains-an-error/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-scientist-the-first-time-evolution-has-been-caught-in-the-act/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-schlafly-lenski-briefwechsel/
Not sure where this fitted so just decided to ask away... Wikipedia claims in it's review on Darwin's Black box that Michael Behe lied under oath about the review that his book had; see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Black_Box
Does anyone here know anything about this? I've searched quite a bit and nothing has really come up.
I believe the claim is that "the book was not peer-reviewed properly".
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/does_the_pandas_black_box_move.html
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
"Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists."
Darwinists dispute whether this counted as a "true" peer review. Keep in mind this is book reviews by scientific peers and not the formalized process defined by scientific journals, so there is an obvious difference up front. Somehow this translates to "Behe is lying" even though obviously there will be disagreement about what is "proper". In fact, many Darwinists reject ANYTHING related to ID even when, like in Meyer's case, an independent 3rd party verifies the process. So, according to many Darwinists, nothing that is ID can be in principle be "peer-reviewed".
I read an interesting summary of a research project run by the biologist Richard Lenski:
He took a sample of bacteria known to be unable to metabolize a certain food-chemical and then allowed thousands of generations of bacteria to grow in the presence of a fixed concentration of this substance.
After many thousands of generations a bacteria emerged from the population which could digest the new food but was somewhat less effective at digesting sugar (as its ancestors did). Many more generations later, the dominant strain of bacteria in the samples could digest both old and new types of food.
Lenski has argued that since the first sample lacked this feature and the latest sample definitely had this feature, the only way to account for this new function is evolution, and furthermore he claims to have practically demonstrated that evolutionary processes can generate new information, such as the metabolic pathway required to consume the new food process.
I read about it here, any suggestions as to how the ID community can respond?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
---
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
login or register to post comments | 0 points