Tag Archives: Paper

Eighteen peer-reviewed scientific publications that support intelligent design

The list of eighteen papers dated 2000 or later that support ID theory is here. (H/T Apologetics 315)

Here are some from the last two years:

  • Michael J. Behe, ‘Experimental Evolution, Loss-Of-Function Mutations and “The First Rule Of Adaptive Evolution”’, The Quarterly Review Of Biology, Volume 85, No. 4, December 2010
  • A.C. McIntosh, ‘Information and Entropy — Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?,’ International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009)
  • William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search’, Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Antonio, Texas (October 2009): 2647–2652
  • William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,’ IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009)
  • William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,’ Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol.14, No.5, 2010, pp. 475-486
  • Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, ‘Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,’ Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297
  • Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,’ Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA – October 2009, pp. 3047-3053
  • Montañez G, Ewert W, Dembski WA, Marks II RJ (2010), ‘A vivisection of the ev computer organism: Identifying sources of active information’, BIO-Complexity 2010(3):1-6. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.3

The blog post on ID.Plus has links to all the papers.

I did not see them mentioning Ann Gauger’s recent paper I blogged about a while back, as well as Doug Axe’s recent paper that I blogged about a while back.

What’s more complex? Your brain or the Internet?

Check it out… a new peer-reviewed paper discussed at CNET News. (H/T Darwin’s God via ECM)

Excerpt:

The human brain is truly awesome.

A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.

These synapses are, of course, so tiny (less than a thousandth of a millimeter in diameter) that humans haven’t been able to see with great clarity what exactly they do and how, beyond knowing that their numbers vary over time. That is until now.

Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have spent the past few years engineering a new imaging model, which they call array tomography, in conjunction with novel computational software, to stitch together image slices into a three-dimensional image that can be rotated, penetrated and navigated. Their work appears in the journal Neuron this week.

To test their model, the team took tissue samples from a mouse whose brain had been bioengineered to make larger neurons in the cerebral cortex express a fluorescent protein (found in jellyfish), making them glow yellow-green. Because of this glow, the researchers were able to see synapses against the background of neurons.

They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study:

One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.

Smith adds that this gives us a glimpse into brain tissue at a level of detail never before attained: “The entire anatomical context of the synapses is preserved. You know right where each one is, and what kind it is.”

I wonder why we consider evolution to be a “done deal” when we don’t have testable Darwinian accounts for how things like this can evolve. They are making the claim that it evolved. I am asking for some evidence.

Another study confirms the link between abortion and breast cancer

Unborn baby scheming about new pro-life arguments

Story from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say. A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease. While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer. The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka. It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.

[…]There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.

Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.

Note that there were only 300 people in the new study, so it is a small study. The only reason that I blog this is because it confirms the Turkey study that I blogged on before, and the China study that I blogged about before, and the American study that I blogged about before.

There is an interesting comment on this story at Secondhand Smoke.

Here it is:

But let me tell you, as a former trial lawyer, the potential is here for tobacco company-type litigation against certain groups if cancer info was suppressed.

That’s from Discovery Institute fellow Wesley J. Smith, who majors in bioethics.