This is the great question that brings ID into the fold of producing a plethora of questions that science must explore.

Certainly we have the great, precisely balanced, big bang event. (If, after all research is done, only the strong anthropic principle remains, then ID remains.)

Did the necessary environmental balance that happened on earth to support life arrive purely by chance, or was it guided? I understand, for instance, that our earth with all of its other life-compatible characteristics was bombarded by a planet-sized meteor to create the moon. If the moon’s gravitational pull and the tides are an essential ingredient of life, either this was a darn lucky break or it was guided.

Even in light of this article, there is a vast information gap between non-life and life. Most IDers expect that this gap was only crossed by intervention.

The cambrian explosion is normally seen as an ID event.

The development of most organs (all?) appear to be guided or directed.

The bacterial flagellum challenge still is far from being met.

Humans are genetically much more different from chimps than can be accounted for by the theory.

How do these things come about? The flagellum, for instance. Did it just suddenly appear in a bacterium? Did the code for the flagellum grow over multiple reproductions? Was there a de-novo creation of a flagellum-based bacteria? (I doubt this.)

These are some of the places where I suspect that ID events can be established. I suspect, however, based upon my own experience with providence, that there are scads of smaller ID events which will forever go undetected.

Rather, it is the ID position that the best explanation for the generation of such specified, complex information is ID.

The article wasn’t about origin of life, it was about common descent, and imagining convenient gene-regulation and expression scenarios that would have allowed an organism to exist in early earth conditions convenient to their RNA hypothesis.

The article does nothing to address the information problem either in the origin of life or in the development of various novel body plans. It is the ID position that generation of such specified, complex information requires ID.

There is nothing in the sited research that challenges ID

At what point do you believe that intelligent intervention was required in the origin of life then?

Did a LUCA arise and then was tweakned, or is the LUCA itself a product of intelligent design?

broadcasters waiting to yank lessons

I meant “waiting to yank licenses”

It really is hard to see how these people can tell these Just So Stories with a straight face! Sheesh. I think the ID explanation is more sensible here, that the designer designed males to be attracted to big bazooms. I’m not sure why that would be, but I imagine ID predicts that there is a good reason for it.

The suggestion made by the posters is that the existance of a LUCA would invalidate ID. While it is true that some IDers do not hold to universal common descent, even they do not base their ID position on this point.

There is nothing in the sited research that challenges ID, yet the yahoos at physorg continue to see a conflict between universal common descent and ID.

bFast, where specifically do you think their reasoning or research is invalid?