Posted: Jan 21, 2011 5:26 am
by hotshoe
Царь Славян wrote:
ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing.
ID has no creation story, therefore it's not creationism.

Lying again. Tsk tsk. God doesn't like you when you lie.
And you can't cherry pick.
Depends no what's to be picked.
Nope. You're doing illegitimate cherry picking just like all the lying cdesignproponentsists at your beloved Dis-Institute. You can't weasel your way out of it by implying your cherry-picking might be legitimate because you are somehow a special case.

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.
Dog, twice today you've said something rational. Are you trying to set a new record ? Good for you !

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 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?
Trolling fail.

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.
Lying again. So sad. Even if you believe in design or creationism, you still believe you were created from rocks - that is, from "dust" according to one of those chapters, or from some other previously inanimate material that was given form or shaped or influenced or whatever into life by the creator or designer or whatever the hell you call it. First, there was no life. Everyone can agree on that unless you are crazy enough to think life has existed eternally unchanged. Then at some unspecified time later, there was life, although it wasn't exactly like the life we now recognize everywhere on our planet. That's "life from rocks" as a convenient shorthand, or life from dust if you insist. To quibble about it just makes you look bizarre.

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and look 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?

Trolling fail.

Maybe people didn't come from rocks.

Of course people don't come from rocks, what a stupid idea. People come from the stork, didn't you know ? :lol:

Did that ever cross your mind? Maybe you should drop your beliefs about people coming from rocks and look at biology objectively?
So, tell us, Tsar, what's your "objective" answer to where people come from ? You know, biologically speaking ? You can skip the sex talk - I'm pretty sure all of us know about penises and sperm and egg fertilization and all that. I'm more interested in what you think is the biological answer for the origin of the human species. Since you're such an expert in biology all of a sudden, maybe you would be so kind as to share your fabulous knowledge with us.

Do I have to say please, pretty please with sugar on it ?