Originally posted by Nineveh
Either you didn't bother to look at that
link or you can't read very well.
What is it that I am supposed to be impressed about? A list of names of scientists who say they believe in the biblical account of creation? So what? A person's religious opinion is of no relevance in science. There is nothing on that page that points to any ID science.
... in the mean time evo scientists work feverishly to get left handed amino acids to stick together in the lab ....
You really don't get it, do you? The puzzle was why life on earth is based on left-handed stereoisomers of amino acids (and all the proteins built from them).
It has been long known that polarized ultraviolet light will preferentially distroy stereo isomers of one handedness while preserving the other. So, the question is one of finding out if anybody has seen such polarization in nature. That is the importance of this item.
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/7/14/1
As to the question of where the organic molecules came from for abiogenesis, such discoveries
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/8/7:
demonstrate that quite complicated organic chemicals form in nebulae. So, it is reasonable to conclude that when the pre-Solar nebula was coalescing, there were millions of tons of organic chemicals, amino acids and the like raining down on the early earth. The ultraviolet discovery suggests the type of conditions necessary for those to be all of the handedness we see in today's life.
Actually, if you read his thoughts closely, he takes issue with the theory itself.
Perhaps he takes issue that birds are *decended from dinosaurs*, but Olson does not take issue with the idea that dinosaurs and birds share common ancestry.Dissent as well as descent are part of biology.
(regarding "junk DNA" and other snotty
creationist whining)
Right, they had no clue what they did or what they were for, yet their "egotism" left it's mark with the name they dubbed it. I beg to differ about it being evo. The definition for junk DNA is "left overs" from the evo process.
In science research always starts with people "having no clue" and proposing the most reasonable solution to the problem. Then as people learn more their knowledge change and their theories are modified and expanded.
Reuse? The appendix had a reason to be there before evo scientists knew what it was for
The appendix is a problem organ for humans. It is a major organ of digestion in marsupials.
So, why is the appendix still around? Basic notions of evolution tell us that it must have *some* benefit, and that benefit was found to be an immune system function.
(What is the creationist explanation? Fallout from the "Fall" or some such nonsense?)
Funny, Behe said something like, 'I'd never heard this evidence before' about ID until after he had been in the field for a while. So, just cuz, you haven't looked for or listened to ID ideas, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Here is what Behe says about common descent:
Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent
to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves
belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an
interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I
have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that
physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all
organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no
particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues
who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary
framework, and I think that evolutinoary biologists have contributed
enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's
mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many
things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not
think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the
way we view the less small."
~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New
York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7
So, basically Behe is an evolutionist who wants to allow some limited Finger of God action for his personal philosophical comfort.
Last time I knew, darwin was still getting his way in public school.
Please offer some info, or you won't mind me not buying your line.
[
Sure, just check out the National Center for Science Education web page:
http://www.ncseweb.org/
Of course, these bills get defeated, but the time and energy expended defeating them is a waste of resources.
Or maybe they watched Unlocking the Mysteries of Life and found chuck has a hard time with step one.
I saw that. It is a ridiculous piece of anti-science propaganda.
Nature doesn't account for a soul or spirit either
Or morality, or love or humour....
"Soul" and "spirit" are pre-scientific notions which amount to the explanation that things move because there is a "little man" on the inside of them making them move. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that life is nothing more than chemical machinery. (Indeed, the modern ID movement believes that this "machinery" has to have been created.)
As to morality, love, humour, and other attributes that we seem to share with other animal species to greater of lesser degree, these things attributes seem to exist because of a survival benefit.
(regarding Dean Kenyon dropping out of science.)
You mean, he hasn't had anything to say about chuck in 25 years. But it's nice to see you give credit to the book he co authored. Too bad you won't listen to what he has to say about it now.
No. Dean Kenyon has done no science of any variety in 25 years. This is evidenced by his lack of scientific publication.
I was hoping to read about allele fequency changes and how those are worked into evo. But, I won't ask again, thanks anyway.
Why don't you search the web yourself. I don't have time to spoon feed you everything.
Um, you were wrong. aharvey even said "he might have misunderstood you". He finally got it. If you want to continue believing that article was about more than one comparison, please, be my guest.
I suggest that you reread Aharvey's posts. He explained to you in detail why the Nature article does not call common descent into question. (He also demonstrated that you lied when you said you read it.)
(Regarding science classes teaching Darwin)
Either they teach darwin or they don't, which is it?
In some places, not very well, or very much.
I still think if everyone is still as ignorant as you claim them to be about evo theory, it's because evo itself has trouble with it's theories and it's definitions. Not because one or two townships actually tried to promote an alternative.
So far there is no scientific alternative to evolution. As Behe points out, even his ID notions are merely modifications of the Darwinian mechanism, but common descent stands.
"There could be", according to who? We seem to be having trouble making educated guesses about genomes right now lol
BTW... anyone got a subscription to Science?
Common sense. There are billions of possible genetic sequences and protein sequences. The ones we see in our biology are limited to a relatively small set.
(I believe that was something that Hubert Yockey study.)
