Tag: Darwinian mechanism | Page 3 | Science and Culture Today

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
November 20, 2020

Categories
Biochemistry
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, A Mousetrap for Darwin, biological origins, critics, Darwinian mechanism, Darwinism, evidence, intelligent design, Kenneth Miller, Lehigh University, life, Michael Behe, Nature (journal), Paul Gross, Science (journal), Sean Carroll, The Edge of Evolution, The New Criterion, webinar}

Does Behe Ignore Critics? Find Out in a Live Webinar Saturday

_{David Klinghoffer
November 20, 2020

Biochemistry, Evolution, Intelligent Design

3}

One of the weirdly persistent themes in attacks on him by other biologists is that he "waves away" opposing interpretations. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Behe

Date
June 17, 2020

Categories
Evolution
Tagged
, bacteria, citrate, Darwin Devolves, Darwinian mechanism, devolution, E. coli, eLife, evolution, fatty acids, genes, genetic information, Long Term Evolution Experiment, metabolism, Michigan State University, mutations, oxygen, Richard Lenski}

Citrate Death Spiral

_{Michael Behe
June 17, 2020

Evolution

8}

Michigan State University biologist Richard Lenski and collaborators have just published a terrific new paper. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Date
March 27, 2020

Categories
Biochemistry
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __k-review, ATP, central dogma, chromosomes, cohesin, Darwinian mechanism, DNA, E. coli, error catastrophe, genome, intelligent design, junk DNA, Lego blocks, mRNA, Nature Communications, PNAS, polymerase, polypeptides, proteins, RNA, South Korea, University of Basel, University of Notre Dame, University of Seville, William Paley}

More Hints of Order in the Genome

_{Science and Culture
March 27, 2020

Biochemistry, Intelligent Design

8}

Genomics has come a long way since the central dogma and junk DNA. If you expect to find reasons for things, you often do find them. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
November 27, 2019

Categories
Evolution
Tagged
, __edited, common descent, Darwinian mechanism, DiscoveryU, evolution, intelligent design, Michael Behe, Thanksgiving, universal common ancestry, video course}

Q&A with Behe: Your Thoughts on Common Descent?

_{David Klinghoffer
November 27, 2019

Evolution

2}

Darwinism has a range of vulnerabilities, arguably including its assertion of universal common ancestry. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Date
August 29, 2019

Categories
Biochemistry
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __edited, amino acids, ATP synthase, bacterial flagellum, cryo-electron microscopy, Darwin Devolves, Darwin's Black Box, Darwinian mechanism, intelligent design, Jerry Coyne, kinesin, Michael Behe, molecular motor, peptide bond, proteins, Richard Dawkins, Science (journal)}

Molecular Motor Threads a Spiral Staircase

_{Science and Culture
August 29, 2019

Biochemistry, Intelligent Design

11}

Get acquainted with another irreducibly complex molecular motor. This one is a master at unfolding proteins. Its method is ingenious. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
May 24, 2019

Categories
Evolution
Neuroscience & Mind
Scientific Reasoning
Tagged
, __k-review, abstract thought, atheism, Darwinian mechanism, evolution, Michael Egnor, mind, Mind Matters, physical objects, puppy}

Why Human Reason Didn’t “Evolve”

_{David Klinghoffer
May 24, 2019

Evolution, Neuroscience & Mind, Scientific Reasoning

3}

Egnor: “Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics.” Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
April 8, 2019

Categories
Evolution
Tagged
, __k-review, algorithms, APOB, Arthur Hunt, Cell (journal), cholesterol, Darwin Devolves, Darwinian mechanism, degradative mutations, Michael Behe, mutations, Nathan Lents, Polar Bear Seminar, polar bears, PolyPhen-2, proteins, Richard Lenski, S. Joshua Swamidass, Shiping Liu}

Polar Bear Seminar: The APOB Gene and Damaging Mutations

_{Casey Luskin
April 8, 2019

Evolution

20}

Michael Behe correctly interpreted a paper by Liu et al. and followed its methodology, whereas his critics, Lents and Hunt, did not. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Behe

Date
March 6, 2019

Categories
Evolution
History of Science
Philosophy of Science
Tagged
, __k-review, APOB, blubber, cholesterol, Darwin Devolves, Darwinian mechanism, DNA, evolution, genes, mice, Michigan State University, polar bears, proteins, Response to Criticism, Richard Lenski, Science (journal), Telliamed Revisited, The Quarterly Review of Biology}

Lessons from Polar Bear Studies

_{Michael Behe
March 6, 2019

Evolution, History of Science, Philosophy of Science

10}

Computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. They do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite them. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Ann Gauger

Date
February 25, 2019

Categories
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __k-review, Ann Gauger, bacteria, BIO-Complexity, Darwin Devolves, Darwinian mechanism, David Berlinski, Elizabeth Pennisi, evolution, Evolution News, exaptation, genes, Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, intelligent design, Long Term Evolution Experiment, methodology, Michael Behe, Nathan Lents, proteins, Richard Lenski, S. Joshua Swamidass, Salmonella, Science (journal)}

Näsvall et al. Demonstrates the Effectiveness of Intelligent Design

_{Ann Gauger
February 25, 2019

Intelligent Design

11}

The dispute started when a review in Science proposed the 2012 article by Näsvall et al. as evidence against Mike Behe’s book Darwin Devolves. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Behe

Date
January 28, 2019

Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __k-review, animal kingdom, beauty, butterfly wings, cholesterol, Darwinian mechanism, David Snoke, law, literature, mind, music, mutations, natural selection, nutrition, sexual selection}

Here’s How to Tell if Scientists Are Exaggerating

_{Michael Behe
January 28, 2019

Evolution, Intelligent Design

4}

Here’s the simple test to tell if scientists are exaggerating wildly. Let’s call it: “The Principle of Comparative Difficulty.” Read More ›