Why isn't this as effective argument?
Dec. 2nd, 2005 11:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsThere is not a single pharmaceutical company in the world that uses the premise that the organisms, their proteins and hormones, or their biophysical structure, was intelligently designed by some wily, creative force capable of making "leaps" over insurmountable dysfunctional intermediary steps. (Mostly because there ain't no such thing known in biology.)
Stanford University has published the results of a research program to identify novel hormones. One of the interesting comments in the article is that they used the assumptions of comment descent and modification with selection to create charts of probabilities regarding the presence and retention of various compounds, and to their pleasure they discovered that the one at the top of their list was exactly the molecule they wanted: a previously unknown hormone that regulated hunger. It has been named Obesetin.
Why isn't this significant to the ID people? They've had ten years to make the case that their premises are scientifically useful, and yet the pharmaceutical industry so far states outright that there's no money to be made from using those premises.
Stanford University has published the results of a research program to identify novel hormones. One of the interesting comments in the article is that they used the assumptions of comment descent and modification with selection to create charts of probabilities regarding the presence and retention of various compounds, and to their pleasure they discovered that the one at the top of their list was exactly the molecule they wanted: a previously unknown hormone that regulated hunger. It has been named Obesetin.
Why isn't this significant to the ID people? They've had ten years to make the case that their premises are scientifically useful, and yet the pharmaceutical industry so far states outright that there's no money to be made from using those premises.
