Did not say there was a prize for biology, however, people do get prizes for work in biology as you admit and which is what I said. So we agree so far.
BTW - thanks for the link very interesting.
But in that respect consider the 2001 prize for Medicine . (Chosen pretty much at random, btw, as the first to come up on a google search.) It went to researchers who have elucidated the detailed molecular mechanisms of the cell cycle (the orchestrated process of cell reproduction, it's control and timing, cell death, etc).
This research showed that the basic mechanisms are highly conserved among all eukaryotes (organisms having cells with a separate nucleus). So let's assume these molecular mechanisms are the result of ID. This then would be perfectly consistent with the claim that all eukaryotes are one "created kind". This helps quite a bit with that overcrowded ark!
IOW it is in most cases empty, and logically wrong, to say that some result "supports ID" but doesn't support evolution. ID is, at least logically, potentially consistent with truly huge amounts of evolution having occured, right up at or near the Kingdom level. The specific examples of systems that (allegedly) must have been intelligently designed are most typically ones that are shared by a vast diversity of organisms, often whole Phyla or Kingdoms.
Here is where you are going way wrong. You are correct in saying that just because different organisms have similar structures, it does not prove or disprove either ID or evolution. It would be unreasonable to say that an intelligent designer would constantly 'reinvent the wheel'. Evolution of course requires traits and genetic material to be passed on so conservation of such traits is not a refutation of evolution either.
Let's look a bit at what the prize was for - a description of the process by which cells divide and the genes which facilitate this function:
The engine and the gear box of the cell cycle
The three Nobel Laureates have discovered molecular mechanisms that regulate the cell cycle. The amount of CDK-molecules is constant during the cell cycle, but their activities vary because of the regulatory function of the cyclins. CDK and cyclin together drive the cell from one cell cycle phase to the next. The CDK-molecules can be compared with an engine and the cyclins with a gear box controlling whether the engine will run in the idling state or drive the cell forward in the cell cycle.
Now what the above describes is the process by which cells - once they start dividing - perform their division. This process is of course very important and the prize is highly deserved. However what these discoveries do not tell us is why the process of cell division was started at all:
One of these genes, designated CDC28 by Hartwell, controls the first step in the progression through the G1-phase of the cell cycle, and was therefore also called "start".
So the discovery determined what happens when the 'start' gene gets activated. However, what has not been found or determined yet is what starts or activates the start gene. This is the problem which evolutionists have and where the evolutionary explanation of organisms totally breaks down. Yes, genes are important. But what we keep finding is that genes are just the active agents of an organism, not the controlling agents of an organism. In other words, genes perform the work they are ordered to do, but they do not give the orders to perform the work. In addition to which, genes often perform more than one function, make more than one protein. This again occurs due to receipt of different orders from elsewhere in the organism.
So in my view, this discovery rather than support evolution, supports intelligent design. The cell cycle is controlled through genes, not by genes. In fact, we already know that one of the reasons for cancerous growth is that some of these genes are expressed (told to make proteins) in excessive amounts by some defect in the controlling DNA:
It is likely that such chromosome alterations are the result of defective cell cycle control. It has been shown that genes for CDK-molecules and cyclins can function as oncogenes. CDK-molecules and cyclins also collaborate with the products of tumour suppressor genes (e.g. p53 and Rb) during the cell cycle.
The findings in the cell cycle field are about to be applied to tumour diagnostics. Increased levels of CDK-molecules and cyclins are sometimes found in human tumours, such as breast cancer and brain tumours. The discoveries may in the long term also open new principles for cancer therapy. Already now clinical trials are in progress using inhibitors of CDK-molecules.
The above shows that the control of the genes is elsewhere in the DNA, in the DNA that controls the expression of these genes.
Unless IDers are willing to offer some specific suggestions about HOW and WHEN these "designs" are brought into actualization by the "designer" in real living organisms, ID doesn't really contradict the major part of textbook evolution.
The designs are brought about with the creation of each new "kind". I know that the term "kind" seems vacuous, but evolutionists have really mangled the term "species". What I mean by "kind" is a species which has new traits, genes, and is more complex than a previous one. The reason for the increased complexity being a necessary agent for this determination is the basic problem which evolutionists have had with their theory since day one and why it has always been rejected by thoughtful individuals:
All organisms consist of cells that multiply through cell division. An adult human being has approximately 100 000 billion cells, all originating from a single cell, the fertilized egg cell. In adults there is also an enormous number of continuously dividing cells replacing those dying. Before a cell can divide it has to grow in size, duplicate its chromosomes and separate the chromosomes for exact distribution between the two daughter cells. These different processes are coordinated in the cell cycle.
All items in green above are from the article cited by Stultis which is here.
The above is what I would call the miracle of life. The miracle of how from one cell, 100 trillion different cells are produced in exactly the correct order, in exactly the correct amount, in exactly the correct places. This is clearly a very involved program, not subject to random change, but a very exact process which has to be 'reinvented' each time a new "kind" is created.
Of course the reason for this is that ID is vacuous. This is also the reason it is scientifically useless, so far any way.
No, and in fact, all the above disproves your statement. ID predicts the total interrelatedness of organisms. Evolution predicts a stochastic organization of the life functions. The interrelatedness of the different functions of the organism shows that the main point of ID, which Behe calls 'irreducible complexity' or that you cannot have one function without other complementary functions is correct (note above that the cell cycle uses many genes to both move the engine as well as others to 'control' the engine - p53 and rb - in order to accomplish the task properly). In fact, perhaps all the biological research being done since the discovery of DNA is indeed about finding just what these complementary functions are.
vs.
G3K in post 241: ID predicts the total interrelatedness of organisms. Evolution predicts a stochastic organization of the life functions.
23r5