Joined: Dec. 2002
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:25)|
|Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:13)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37)|
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.
Ames go fuck yourself.
Your position can't explaijn alternative gene splicing and you know it.
Cutting and pasting the contents of a section from Nature called "Building a Cell" doesn't constitute evidence of anything. When you read and understand the papers you cite the titles of, I'll consider discussing the science with you. Until then, you're just spewing bullshit (in the technical sense of the term).
And THAT, to answer your original question once more, is why ID cannot be permitted to be taught in public schools. Because the people who would teach it are barely competent to read the titles of the scientific literature, much less to understand any of it.