Re: Protein Evolution

From: Josh Bembenek <>
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 17:57:47 EDT


I thought the list did not allow attachments, so I didn't do that. The link
has additional links for PDF, but since I am at an institution with access
to various journals, it might allow me whereas others cannot see it. Please
clarify how I should post this if I need to.

And the statement regarding production is vague because I don't clearly
remember the precise critiques I've read from others here about the
fruitfulness of IDers.

So, general comments based upon whatever interpretation of my statement
generates are fine.


On 9/7/04 3:24 PM, "Jack Haas" <> wrote:

> Josh:
> I think that we need the full article if we are to provide a reasonable
> critique. Also, a more or less agreed upon statement of what it means to
> say: "ID Theory Begins to Produce."
> Jack Haas
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Bembenek" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 2:01 PM
> Subject: Protein Evolution
>> Or perhaps the thread should be titled "ID Theory Begins to Produce."
>> Does anyone qualify this as satisfying the necessity of the Discovery
> folks
>> to provide a product of ID theory?
>> I'm not a mathemetician so I cannot comment deeply on the article.
> Perhaps
>> the conclusion that protein functions that require multiple point
> mutations
>> for derivation of such function is (prohibitive?) difficult to produce by
>> such mechanism is not entirely surprising. Generating quantitative
> methods
>> for calculating such difficulties may be useful none-the-less.
>> However: this is a peer reviewed publication which states that the authors
>> are critical of evolutionary mechanisms to produce biological features.
> Is
>> this ground-breaking?
>> Anyway, looking forward to discussion more along lines of interest to
>> myself.
>> Josh
Received on Tue Sep 7 19:59:31 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 19:59:32 EDT