Posted: Jan 21, 2011 5:25 am
by Rumraket
Царь Славян wrote:
ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing.
ID has no creation story, therefore it's not creationism.

Flat out bold faced lie. ID is creationism in every possible way. Fuck, we even have the transitional forms in the books that were written after the 1987 courtcase that struck down creationism. Almost every single ID proponent, and certainly all of the founders of the ID movement and the members of the ID-"thinktank" The Discovery Institute have openly admitted to religious motivations.

Just because you invent a new label and attempt to avoid naming who's doing the designing doesn't mean we suddenly forget the history of the ID movement. Noone is fooled. It's Creationism, deal with it.

And you can't cherry pick.
Depends no what's to be picked.

Wait... you are actually going to defend cherry picking data? ROFL.

Where did your intellectual honesty go? Ahh now I remember you never did bring it .... :whistle:

In biological evolution, there are four main processes: natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and migration. Evolution is about the change in gene frequencies over time.
That's pretty much fine with me.

A apparently small genetic change can lead to large differences in morphology, biochemistry, physiology, behavior etc. Sometimes, a significant amount of genetic change can lead to relatively little change in phenotype. It all depends on the nature of the genetic change. For example, there are many isopmorphs of a protein that can do the same job, so different organisms can have a diverse DNA sequences and a different amino acid sequence, and yet in many cases, the protein or enzyme may work the same or in a similar manner.
Changes in signaling regulatory genes [or even some Genetic Regulatory Networks or pathways] can lead to profound changes in morphology at any level. Within species, for example, you can have size polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and specialization of castes, such as in the social hymenoptera.

In development, the embryo's four dimensional geometry changes according to the expression of homeobox genes and other transcription factors. These Genetic Regulatory Networks are both highly conserved in the early-expressed traits, and evolvable in the later expressed traits. (Davidson, 2006).
Okay, I agree. Is this supposed to be an argument against ID or something?

It's simply obvious that you have no clue how changes can result in phenotypic and morphological change. Especially your complete lack of understanding of proteins have been made explicit for all to see in this thread. Your consistent handwaving at all the papers presented that shot down your assertions testify this fact quite convincingly.

It is quite clear that your knowledge of biology is totally inadequate for you to make even a basic assessment of how biology works.
Really, how did you come to this conclusion?

I guess he read this thread.

As a consequence people like you are vulnerable to any crackpot pseudo-explanation that comes along.
I would disagree. I'd rather say that people who believe that they came from rocks are the ones who don't know much about biology.

Says the guy who once again equivocated a horribly oversimplified Abiogenesis with Darwinian Evolution. :whistle:

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and loo at the evidence objectively [with no thought as to whether or not you like the conclusions or implications], then you have no hope of ever gaining even a basic understanding of science or nature.
How do you know I haven't already done that? And maybe it is you, wishing to see evidence of having been brought about from a rock, that has this preconcieved ideas? Maybe people didn't come from rocks. Did that ever cross your mind? Maybe you should drop your beliefs about people coming from rocks and look at biology objectively?

There you go with your "from rocks" nonsense again, equivocating Abiogenesis with Evolution through mutation and natural selection.

Funny how people who think a magic, nonphysical wizard-mind (who loves you), existing in the absense of a brain (becase we have so much evidence of minds doing that, right?), outside of space and time, somehow could spontaneously create the entirety of extant biodiversity OUT OF DIRT(or clay), simply by wishing it into existence. Funny how these same people who claim they look with awe and marvel at the wonders of nature, apparently do not have the capacity to imagine that their supposed magic man could have chosen other methods of creation than the SPONTANEOUS OUT OF NOWHERE kind.

Fuck all that, it's better to believe in ancient texts, in the face of the evidence, written by misogynistic desert goat-herders at the infancy of civilization than to actually pay attention to the physical reality that would supposedly, by their own beliefs and claims, be the product of their space-wizard.