RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: IDC != AntiEvolution?, Discuss...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tom Ames

Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:13   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37)
Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05)
It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Let me just say, as someone who works in this field, reads, understand and writes these kinds of papers (and knows some of the authors) that you have absolutely no clue about the content of the papers you cite.

You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

-Tom Ames

  178 replies since Feb. 24 2010,09:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]