Some thoughts.

The knowledge that science delivers is a function of several variables. One such variable is the tools we possess. In the 1980s and 90s, the tools of recombinant DNA technology were merged with biochemistry and scientists determined that life was machine-dependent. Today, scientists such as Rutgers researcher Richard H. Ebright and his collaborators use even more sophisticated tools to explore the mechanisms of these machines, uncovering a world of amazing sophistication.
Read the rest of this entry »

Biological research continues to enhance the plausibility of front-loading evolution.

Sea urchins may be blind, but they have the same genes that help people see, as well as genes for a sense of smell and one of the most complicated immune systems in the animal world, researchers reported on Thursday.

They also have genes associated with diseases such as Huntington’s and muscular dystrophy, offering new routes to understanding illnesses, the researchers write in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

They found that the urchin has about 979 genes for proteins that sense light and odors — similar to what is found in vertebrates that actually do see and smell things. How the sea urchin uses them is not yet clear.

Like people, sea urchins have many immune genes that are active in the gut, which may help in coping with symbiotic bacteria that help digest food.

“It is one thing to be able to recognize all bacteria and get rid of all of them. It is another thing to maintain that in a complex way that you don’t kill all of them,” Rast said in a telephone interview.

Vertebrates have adaptive immune systems as well as innate immune systems that attack invaders without necessarily recognizing them, but invertebrates do not.

Urchins appear to have the genetic predecessors to the adaptive immune system — the antibodies and T-cells that can change and respond to new germs, the study showed.

The significance of all this will become more clear after reading The Design Matrix.

As I have noted, I am in the highly unusual position of offering a book about design and evolution while using a pseudonym. As such, some of you may be reluctant to obtain The Design Matrix, even though William Dembski has written, “Mike Gene is one of the most insightful individuals in the ID/evolution debate.” So I offer you the perspective from the other side of the aisle. I have interacted with hundreds of ID skeptics on the Internet over the years, many of them scientists. Here are some of their observations that were made on the Internet:

You all know that I’ve had a number of run-ins with Mike Gene, and I am generally on the ‘other side’. But I have always respected Mike precisely because he is actually knowledgeable about science and will always deal in an honest way with science issues according to his knowledge and training.

The only way to test ID concepts is to tightly define specific ID hypotheses, generate predictions based on these hypotheses, and then test these predictions experimentally. As far as I can tell, there are only a very tiny minority of IDists who are prepared to head in this general direction, of whom Mike Gene is probably the best example.

And, while I can certainly find it in me to accuse Mike Gene of all sorts of things, not being an independent thinker is not one of them.

I think you have an excellent perspective on the subject, and are to be commended. You acknowledge that it is possible that these phenomena could be explained without appeal to design or the supernatural, and that “I don’t know” is a valid answer. What more could one ask of a scientist?

Of all the ID proponents I have reasearched you are, by far, the most impressive I have run across. I am impressed because you state your assumption/proposals clearly and honestly.