Finnish peer-reviewed article that’s pro-ID

[Petr]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/finnish-peer-reviewed-article-thats-pro-id/


5 April 2007

Finnish peer-reviewed article that’s pro-ID

William Dembski


Here’s a pro-ID article without the usual disclaimers (e.g., a ritualistic suck-up to Darwin, an obligatory sneer at ID). Perhaps this is a sign of things to come.


Protein engineering: opportunities and challenges

Matti Leisola1 and Ossi Turunen1

Journal Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
SpringerLink Date Tuesday, April 03, 2007

SOURCE: http://www.springerlink.com/content/d514772515583767/

Received: 28 February 2007 Revised: 20 March 2007 Accepted: 21 March 2007 Published online: 3 April 2007


Abstract: The extraordinary properties of natural proteins demonstrate that life-like protein engineering is both achievable and valuable. Rapid progress and impressive results have been made towards this goal using rational design and random techniques or a combination of both. However, we still do not have a general theory on how to specify a structure that is suited to a target function nor can we specify a sequence that folds to a target structure. There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both.

Keywords: Protein engineering - Directed evolution - Enzymes

(1) Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 6100, 02015 HUT Espoo, Finland

Petr

[Petr]

A follow-up: directed evolution = intelligent design. Which makes the eugenics more ID than Darwinist, when you think about that...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-directed-evolution-darwinian/


10 April 2007

Is “Directed Evolution” Darwinian?

William Dembski


I posted a reference the other day to a peer-reviewed paper by two Finnish ID-supporters that I claimed supported ID. The paper highlighted that evolutionary methods work to the degree that they are directed. As is typical with our detractors, whenever a pro-ID paper by pro-ID scientists comes out in a peer-reviewed biology journal, they try their best to show that it doesn’t actually support ID. An example is the following post at PT by Steve Reuland:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/the_proid_paper.html

In reading Reuland’s critique, try to keep track of “rational design,” “directed evolution,” and “Darwinian methods.” Reuland conflates the last two. In so doing, Reuland completely misses the boat. So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED. I’ve been saying this now for close to a decade (see ch. 4 of my book No Free Lunch). Just because the word “evolution” is used doesn’t mean that homage is being paid to Darwin. “Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.

[Petr]

I myself recognized the name of Matti Leisola - he translated perhaps the best known ID book in Finland from German:

http://www.datakirjatkustannus.fi/Evoluutio.htm


Had you not mentioned it, I would have missed the fact Matti Leisola is listed in

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

I then looked at Steve Reuland’s response and realized on top of Leisola being listed in dissentfromdarwin, Leisola participated in a creationist conference. The fact Leisola succeeded in this endeavor is news in itself.

Matti Leisola is a Professor at Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering Helsinki University of Technology.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-directed-evolution-darwinian/#comment-115807


Petr

[Petr]

Addendum from Dembski:


[Steve Reuland, commenting at the Panda’s Thumb on this post, claims that I’ve misrepresented him and the paper. If he but were to read the paper closely, he would find that it distinguishes between Darwinian evolution as an “inspiration” to directed search and “Darwinian blind search” as inherently limited. Darwinian evolution, which is blind, is the inspiration for evolutionary computing, which employs well-crafted fitness landscapes to achieve ends and therefore is not blind — and therefore is properly a branch of ID and non-Darwinian. Yes, we’re playing a turf war here. But it will not do to have Darwin discard teleology and then to claim teleological processes as Darwinian. This is an abuse of language. Leisola and Turunen skirted the edge yet nuanced their views adequately; but Reuland is guilty of it.]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-directed-evolution-darwinian/#comments


Petr