Comment #32273

Posted by nihilan on May 26, 2005 11:09 AM (e) (s)

Nothing new here.

I’m surpirsed you guys haven’t picked up on this article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24716…

Comment #32274

Posted by steve on May 26, 2005 11:21 AM (e) (s)

A Global-Warming Denier Among the Evolution Deniers, this might have been called.

(Bailey is the author of “Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death” http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/qid…)

Comment #32284

Posted by Mike P on May 26, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)

Why is it that writers always point to the idea that evolution and religion are equally compatible, and then make that more or less their centerpoint?  You’d think from a lot of these articles that the greatest argument for evolution is that it is compatible with religion.  I’m all for a little less pandering to the religious and a little more attention to the science…

…and then I remember I’m a journalism major and I know full well that sex sells, and if religion and evolution dancing together isn’t sexy to the public, I don’t know what is.

Comment #32286

Posted by Steve U. on May 26, 2005 01:01 PM (e) (s)

Nihilan

That is an interesting article.  A couple comments

Romesberg and his colleagues believe that cells are not just the passive victims of random mutations, but have ways of initiating mutations in their own DNA. Evidence for this includes the fact that the rates of mutation in some cells does not seem consistent with the mutation rates associated with DNA replication.

Romeserg and his colleagues “believe” what they believe because it is a universally acknowledged fact, known for decades.

The so-called SOS repair system which is initiated when bacterial cells are stressed (i.e., subjected to DNA damaging conditions, such as exposure to an antibiotic which damages DNA) is known to be mutagenic.  Note that the Romesberg is not suggesting that cells are directing certain codons to be mutated.  Rather Romesberg is merely stating that mutations are increased under certain cellular states.  Is it advantageous to initiate these responses for the survival of the species?  Arguably, yes.

Another fact to keep in mind when reading these sorts of press releases:

http://www.achaogen.com/founders.html

Achaogen is pursuing unique strategies to combat these drug-resistant pathogens. Our scientific strategy is without precedent and represents a fundamentally new approach to address this growing healthcare crisis.

When you read “fundamentally new” in this context it means “we are filing patents”.

Which brings up an interesting issue: from time to time the USPTO holds online “chat rooms” where you can ask the PTO questions.  I tried desperately one day to get the PTO to address the following question:

I have developed a method for showing that an organism and/or a sub-component of the organism’s biological structure was designed by a non-human intelligent alien being.  Theoretically, is my method patentable?

Do you know what? The online examiners refused to answer my question!  I think you can guess why. :)

Comment #32317

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 26, 2005 04:12 PM (e) (s)

@nihilan:

did you ever stop to think that the article itself is great evidence in support of natural selection and evolutionary theory?

I wonder why Dembski didn’t notice that?

Comment #32532

Posted by nihilan on May 28, 2005 06:25 AM (e) (s)

That’s why I posted it.

Post a Comment

Use Kwickcode Formatting to markup your comments. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.

Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? YesNo

Comments: