From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   https://scienceandculture.com/2025/12/ten-myths-about-dover-no-3   
   intelligent-design-has-no-peer-reviewed-publications/   
      
   QUOTE:   
   “ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific   
   theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals…”   
      
   “A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific   
   warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting   
   the theory.”   
   END QUOTE:   
      
   The ID perps are still lying about peer reviewed publications that   
   support their bogus ID theory junk.   
      
   Both Minnich and Behe demonstrated under oath that they knew of no peer   
   reviewed scientific publications supporting intelligent design.  That is   
   how the Judge came to his conclusions.  There still are no peer reviewed   
   scientific publication supporting intelligent design science.  They   
   might mention intelligent design, but they don't present any valid   
   science supporting the notion.   
      
   The ID perps had published scientific papers, but none of them warranted   
   being called scientific support for ID by Behe and Minnich.  The judge   
   got his opinion about no peer reviewed scientific support from Behe and   
   Minnich being unable to put forward any such papers.   
      
   In this article they put up several papers like Meyer's retracted paper   
   which likely wasn't any type of valid support for ID, and it ended up   
   being retracted by the journal (The ID perps are still paying off   
   Sternberg for getting that paper published, just think how much they   
   have paid Sternberg since 2007, and for what?  Sternberg has never   
   produced any ID science worth calling science or the bait and switch   
   would not continue to go down.).   
      
   It seems laughable, but they put up a Behe and Snokes paper on gene   
   duplication not being able to evolve complex protein-protein   
   interactions.  So their simulation failed, so what?  Minnich was   
   involved in a paper that demonstrated that gene duplication resulted in   
   an IC tail structure where the tail was made of multiple parts, but if   
   you removed one of tail parts the tail would not be made.  Minnich had   
   likely identified the tail protein genes in his gene knockout   
   experiments demonstrating that the flagellum was irreducibly complex in   
   that if you removed a part the function would be lost (Minnich never   
   demonstrated that the flagellum was Behe's type of IC that required   
   "well matched" parts and other things).  It turned out that the original   
   flagellum likely had only one tail protein that attached to the hook and   
   extended the tail, but a more complex tail evolved by gene duplication.   
   The initial duplication produced two copies of the tail protein gene.   
   One copy specialized in binding to the hook and the other specialized in   
   extending the tail.  The gene that extended the tail duplicated again   
   and one of the duplicates evolved to be smaller in structure so that if   
   it was added after the first extender protein the tail would get   
   narrower.  This smaller extender protein duplicated and one copy reduced   
   in size again, and allowed a greater tapper.  If you remove the tail   
   protein that binds to the hook you won't get a tail because the other   
   duplicated copies now only extend the tail.  This just means that   
   Minnich had already demonstrated that Behe and Snoke's simulation paper   
   was likely GIGO, and that they had to redo the simulation parameters,   
   and try to figure out how the flagellar tail evolved by gene   
   duplication.  All the additional parts had to do was keep doing their   
   original job and produce a smaller building block.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)