REW, take a look at Scott Minnich's work on the flagellum. For instance -- unsurprisingly -- he has demonstrated its irreducible complexity. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2016
November
11
Nov
4
04
2016
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
good point by REW.
a death blow to NDT (Neo-Darwinism) is SPIRAL cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis that explains why
the highest probability explanation,
of the natural observations,
of the abundant empirical evidence,
that is distant starlight,
falsifies all deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses.
I do not know any serious scientist that claims NDT can be salvaged for this reason alone if less than 500 million years have elapsed since a big bang cosmic inflation expansion event. (yes there are many other reasons NDT fails as a valid hypothesis.)
SPIRAL explains the science why the age in years is limited to the number of light years to the distance of the nearest source of CR, so well under 500 M years.
As Doctor Meyer's might say 'Einstein's doubt'
when Einstein capitulated to ongoing cosmic expansion (CE) when the best (highest probability) valid science is there is no ongoing CE.
So Einstein's biggest blunder was thinking he had blundered in this regard.
reference SPIRAL at:
'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'
Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205
and with over 200 reads on research-gate:
The Pearlman SPIRAL vs Standard free cosmology model info-graphic:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291972501_ThePearlmanSPIRALvsSCMPearlman
November 3, 2016
November
11
Nov
3
03
2016
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
I'm surprised those at the DI would be so unambitious. After all, the notion that the flagellum must have been designed is a centerpiece of ID arguments. So shouldn't every paper on the flagellum be included on the list, despite the fact the vast majority of authors dont accept design? For that matter shouldn't every paper in biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, paleontology and information science be on the list? The title of the list is 'publications that support ID' not "authors who support ID"REW
November 3, 2016
November
11
Nov
3
03
2016
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Wow! This is a fantastic resource. Well done.Truth Will Set You Free
November 3, 2016
November
11
Nov
3
03
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Notice, how functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I, credibly requires an intelligent source that directs configuration. (It is actually astonishing to have to laboriously document and warrant this rather obvious claim, but that is where we have come to.)
The import is, that those who wish to account for information of this order without reference to a self-moved, intelligent, active agent and linked process of intelligently directed configuration, need to warrant their claims.
Based on direct observation and/or on convincing, empirically grounded argument per logic of structure and quantity.kairosfocus
November 3, 2016
November
11
Nov
3
03
2016
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Where to go to see ID in the peer-reviewed literature.kairosfocus
