It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Protein structures and intelligent design

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Yes, and what is your point?

My point has already been made. Adam has nothing to do with IDT, you're the one who brought it up.


Originally posted by Frosty


How do you know that drugs do not induce genetic drift? You read one article that says HIV has genetic variations even before drug administration and now all genetic variations occur free of drugs and selective pressure?

Ummm.... because that's the definition of genetic drift. Please note the term random in nearly all definitions of genetic drift. By definition, that's what genetic drift is.

Oh and by the way... I've read a lot more than one article re: genetic drift. My bachelor's degree is in Biochemistry, my Ph.D. is in Molecular Biology, and I have taught molecular genetics at the graduate level. I think I am overwhelmingly more qualified than you, or pretty much anyone here in this forum to comment on the nature of genetic drift.

Oh yeah, and BTW, what are YOUR scientific qualifications smart guy?

Have you read even a single PRIMARY reference about genetic drift in your entire life? Which?


It still would not answer why it happens.

Ummm... the definition defines why it happens.... I am sorry this is so difficult for you. The definition is a description of the phenomena...
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?


Saying it's 'pre-existing' does not change the subject. Why is it 'pre-existing'? God? LOL!
That's what the site is trying to make a conection with.

What? Mutations exist because they happen, either through random means or otherwise. I am not sure what your difficulty with this concept is. I never said anything about God. Mutations happen as a function of having a genome. Genomes mutate. Perhaps you should consult a high school biology text. The concept is really quite simple: Mutations arise within a system, and selective pressure expoits them and induces differential rates of reproductive sucess. It can't be broken down much more simply than this.

"Pre-existing" isn't meant to "change the subject," it's used to describe the state of the genomes.

I realize this is a revolutionary concept and hard for you to grasp, but variation exist within genomes. Hence the statement 'pre-existing' variation.

Suck it up, buddy... all genomes aren't the same, and that's what genetic drift acts upon.


My theory is that is pre-existing do to millions of years of evolutions in which life of all kind has undergone environmental changes. Now whether you belive in that or not, I still think it sound better than 'It god fault'.

Ummm.... nice straw man, but no one said "It god fault [sic]"

And, if you understood anything about IDT you'd never make that statement. IDT is not in opposition to the concept of 'millions of years,' nor does the topic of genetic drift stand in opposition to IDT. Of course, you'd know this if you weren't completely ignorant about the topic.

It's lots of fun to pretend you know something about a topic, but believe it or not, it's even more fun to actually know something. Then you don't make yourself look ridiculous by making statements about IDTists saying 'God did it,' or making arguments about IDT that are completely irrelevant (millions of years, genetic drift), and trying to redefine or play other semantical games with concepts such as genetic drift.

Again, what is the extent of your experience and knowledge about this particular topic?

Based on what you've written it seems like a big fat ZERO.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixByrd
I'm not even going to read the entire thread, just reply to this first post...


And the sites motto of 'Denying Ignorance' is undermined once again. Great Job!!! I wish I was as smart as you... you can judge things without even reading them.



First off, I didn't bother reading that whole website.

Yes!!! Undermining the sites motto twice in 2 sentences. Mods, is the a new record?



They're not true scientist's in my eye's.

Based on what, that you don't like their conclusions? Oh yeah, great way to approach a problem. They're more scientist than you'll ever be. They've got Ph.D.'s from real institutions, and peer-reviewed publications. Simply because you don't like what they believe or their metaphysical presupposition, doesn't make them 'not scientists.' You know nothing about either person, except their metaphysical presupposition, and you've dismissed them.

Are you sure you're on the correct site? Again, this sites motto is 'Deny Ignorance,' not 'Uphold Ignorance' or 'Maintain Ignorance at all costs.' Though if you google search it, I'm sure you can find a forum that's more suited to your desires with respect to ignorance.


My reasoning is these so called scientist's are trying to justify the existence of god by trying to find fault's in current scientific theories.

And this was your theory based on what information?

Oh yes... that's right, NOT READING the site.



This is wrong, oh and that's wrong to, this is how we think it really is because it fit's with our view of god.

Well, that's actually not what Ross and Rana try to do. Of course you'd know this if you'd read the site, or the thread



DNA resemble's motor's n such doesn't imply anyone intelligent creating them.

DNA doesn't resemble motors, and no one said it does. Again, it helps to READ things BEFORE commenting on them. You're more than welcome to stick with your 'Maintain ignorance at all costs' philosophy, but I got to tell you, it's not going to go over well in this forum. Again, think about the motto.


I don't claim to know it all, I don't claim to have all your answer's.

Well that's good. I'd hate to think that I've wasted all my time actually reading stuff, when you seem to have found a much more efficient way to absorb information. Perhaps you can share it with us, because as you've made abundantly clear, you don't read anything that goes against what you believe, yet somehow you're able to dismiss them as rubbish. This could be revolutionary. You know, I am about to be certified as a patent agent. I can write the patent if you can describe this process. We'll be millionaires!



But if religous people are gunna claim to have it, please... put sum damn thought behind it. If god really did create us, he gave us a brain for a reason.

Hmmm... seems to me that the Reason's website, and all the associated articles demonstrates that they have put some thought into it.

How did you miss this? Oh yeah.... that's right, you didn't actually read the site, or the thread.

While your knowledge of origins leaves a lot to be desired, I am fascinated by this new learning process you've developed. Imagine that ATSer's being able to dismiss topics as unscientific or irrelevant without even reading them.

Actually... this guy could be dangerous to the site, heck with PhoenixByrd around, ALL conspiracy theories could come to an end. He can dismiss them without even reading them...

Truly amazing... I think you should have your own infomercial. If you're located in Phoenix, you can have Don Lapre help you out.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I was going to post sumthing else ... But, since some people feel the need to attack other's, here's what I'll post instead.

Mattison, I don't see the need to attack another poster outright, but if that's how you like to play it, then that just show's what kind of person you are and nothing furthur from me need's to be said about you.

"Hmmm... seems to me that the Reason's website, and all the associated articles demonstrates that they have put some thought into it. "

Actually, I did read AND post some information that was on that site, I see you had no witty smartass remarks to that. All you could add to what I posted was personal attacks to me and my character. That's not cool, nor intelligent.

Since that post I have been reading more of this thread and that site to make my point more clear, which is what I was going to originally post. But you felt the need to attack me out right instead of discussing the point's I already tried discussing from that site! You completly dismiss them in an attempt to make me look bad for what I feel are good point's. Which is probably WHY you attacked me and my character and NOT the thing's posted on that site!

I'm sorry, but in my eye's your the one who look's stupid for attacking me and not my idea's/opinion. I don't feel stupid because of you, because you couldn't even argue against what I did bring up.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixByrd
Mattison, I don't see the need to attack another poster outright, but if that's how you like to play it, then that just show's what kind of person you are and nothing furthur from me need's to be said about you.

Hey, whatever it takes to bring you out of your shell. And I didn't attack you. I attacked your methods. I further stand behind my original assertion.

Posting and commenting on things prior to reading them is bad policy. You fully admitted that your opinion was formed BEFORE reading the site. You said these people aren't scientists without being aware of their qualifications.

You can whine and cry 'ad hominem attack' all you want, but it doesn't change what you said.

I didn't attack you personally, I attacked your attitude about information. And I don't retract it. If you want to form opinions without reading things, hey go right ahead and do so. But don't be surprised when people show no respect for your opinion. I didn't attack you personally, I attacked your complete lack of objectivity. Suck it up.


Actually, I did read AND post some information that was on that site, I see you had no witty smartass remarks to that. All you could add to what I posted was personal attacks to me and my character. That's not cool, nor intelligent.


Untrue... I did have a witty smartass remark for your DNA comment. The reason I reserved my comments to that in particular was because I am extremely familiar with it. I am less familiar with Dark matter, the moon, and gypsy moths. I leave those for someone else. Did you not see that remark. Also, your 'comments' really leave little to be addressed.

There's not much to respond to when someone posts something like:

These people are just simply amazing .... *ly stupid.

Interestingly enough, you attack these people, who are overwhelmingly more qualified than you in an ad hominem manner, then you whine and complain when you think it's happening to you. Do as I say, not as I do, huh? Another great policy.


I already tried discussing from that site! You completly dismiss them in an attempt to make me look bad for what I feel are good point's. Which is probably WHY you attacked me and my character and NOT the thing's posted on that site!

You don't have any points to dismiss, with the exception of disinformation, ie: DNA is motor-like. I haven't dismissed any points, as you've not made any. Remember these statements:

I'm not even going to read the entire thread, just reply to this first post...

First off, I didn't bother reading that whole website.

They pretty much argue against you having any valid arguments.


I'm sorry, but in my eye's your the one who look's stupid for attacking me and not my idea's/opinion.

Actually, you're wrong. I didn't attack you personally, I attacked your methods and your admitted lack of objectivity. Had you offered an opinion or idea that I disagreed with, I would have addressed that. But since you've read neither the site, nor the thread, it makes it tough to offer 'idea's/opinions.' Do you see where the break in the chain is there?

My 'attack' was not about you personally, as I know nearly nothing about you. Here's what I do know about you: You comment with authority about topics after clearly stating:

I'm not even going to read the entire thread, just reply to this first post...

First off, I didn't bother reading that whole website.

That's a lousy way to approach information, and I'll call you on it every time.

And whether or not I look 'stupid' in the eyes of someone who approaches information with your attitude is irrelevant to me.


I don't feel stupid because of you,

And you shouldn't, if you feel stupid it should be because you like to comment in an authoratative manner from a position of professed ignorance. If that doesn't make you feel stupid then nothing will. Please don't twist this around and say I called you stupid, because I didn't...


because you couldn't even argue against what I did bring up.


You're right. Rren, it's over for me. I've been done in by the following argument:

Do you expect DNA or anything to find a more difficult mode of operation? Just because DNA resemble's motor's n such doesn't imply anyone intelligent creating them. The universe has been around for billion's of year's. Who's to say the actual building blocks that started life on this planet actually STARTED on this planet. The universe is a VERY HUGE place where we see the building blocks of life EVERYWHERE. So in that light, DNA had a veeeery long time to find the best possible mode of operating.

This argument was sooo overwhelming for me, I just couldn't address it. I now have complete faith in metaphysical naturalism. .

Watch out Rren, cause I'm out to get you now.

I know all this ID is a front for creationism... You know how I know this? It's laid out in the above quoted argument, and in this next quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixByrd
Hey, here's sum proof ID is creationism in disguise. Religous people came up with ID.

How can you argue with that?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

First off, I didn't bother reading that whole website.


I've been keeping up with it for a couple years now more or less. The quotes from my first post were from this page by Dr. 'Fuz' Rana (did you want to argue any of the points raised by this psuedoscientist about the protein structures found in the cell)? Yes these guys are creationists (old earth - local flood proponents) yes i am a creationist. He (Rana) didn't say chapter so-in-so verse so-and-so GOD say the cell is like this... and it was good. We can debate the various papers on Reasons.org if you'd like. But that would require you to read them and fit that into the topic and hand... or start a "reasons is full of it" thread so that those interested can debate the issues on a case by case basis.



They're not true scientist's in my eye's.


The problem is that you didn't use your eyes.

You didn't even have to read all of page 1 of this thread to find this link: RTB Scholar Team. I realize you don't like to read so i'll give you a quickie cut and paste from the link, k? 'Reasons' examines a variety of topics and has credential scholars in several disciplines... but these are the scientists.

Hugh Ross
Dr. Ross earned a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto. For several years he continued his research on quasars and galaxies as a post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology.

Dr. Fazale Rana
Dr. Rana attended West Virginia State College, then Ohio University, where he earned a Ph.D. in Chemistry. His post-doctoral work was conducted at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia. He was a Presidential Scholar, was elected into two honors societies, and won the Donald Clippinger Research Award twice at Ohio University. Dr. Rana worked for seven years on product development for Procter & Gamble before joining Reasons To Believe.

Dr. Rana has published over 15 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and delivered over 20 presentations at international scientific meetings. Dr. Rana co-authored a chapter on anti-microbial peptides for Biological and Synthetic Membranes.


Dr. David H. Rogstad
Dr. David Rogstad, Executive Vice President for Reasons To Believe, earned a Ph.D. in Physics from Caltech in Pasadena, California doing research in radio astronomy. He worked at Caltech and Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for a combined 31 years before retiring to come to work at Reasons To Believe full-time. He continues to maintain a role at JPL as a technical consultant.

Dr. Rogstad was a senior member of the technical staff at JPL. Among the various projects he was involved in, Dr. Rogstad led a team to develop supercomputers that were used by the Department of Defense to simulate “Star Wars” scenarios. He also supervised a team to develop components credited with saving the Galileo Mission to Jupiter. He is the chief editor of the book, Antenna Arraying Techniques in the Deep Space Network, on the technological aspects of antenna arraying.

Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink
Jeff Zweerink comes to Reasons To Believe from University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) where he served on the physics and astronomy research faculty. His specialty is high energy gamma-ray astrophysics. Although science has been a major interest for most of his life, Jeff’s fascination with gamma rays—messengers from vastly distant black holes and neutron stars—began during his graduate studies at Iowa State University, where he earned his Ph.D. (1997).

Prior to joining Reasons To Believe, Jeff spent much time working on the STACEE and VERITAS gamma-ray telescopes. In addition, he was involved in research projects including the Solar Two Project and the Whipple Collaboration. Jeff has co-authored more than 30 refereed publications and numerous conference proceedings.

Looks like a bunch of quacks to me too. Or maybe... just maybe you could accept that their opinions are qualified and you'll just have to debate the veracity of their arguments instead.





My reasoning is these so called scientist's are trying to justify the existence of god by trying to find fault's in current scientific theories.


I won't comment on that as you've said you haven't read any of their material... so therefore i have no idea what your point is. Creationism is much more than finding faults in current theories though. As a matter of fact 'Reasons' spends a great deal of their time debating and debunking young earth creationism... they are scientific in their approach. Yes they use the Bible, yes they are creationists. If that's an issue or enough information for you to dismiss their claims, then so be it. Obviously nothing i could say would change your mind i'm sure.



This is wrong, oh and that's wrong to, this is how we think it really is because it fit's with our view of god.


I do find this as a strange thing for a so called scientific look at ID/Creationism...


Umm, what? I'm sorry, one more time for the people in the cheaps seats please. That has got to be one of the most vague circular arguments i've heard in a while... might even be bigotry, but it's just oblique enough for me to be unsure.




#7 * A study of gypsy moth parasites demonstrates that the creation of a diverse array of specialized parasites indeed is consistent with an all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving Creator.

So, simply because gypsy moth's have parasite's that are specialized to the gypsy moth, that in itself is scientific validation for proof of god?

Can sumone please explain that furthur to me? Does anyone see the lack of common sense there?


See that little #7(Click here for list of "#'s") in the quote, it's a link to a real player audio file. Perhaps if you'd like to know more you'd listen and find out what they mean. I don't know maybe that's just me. Did you want me to transcribe the audio and post it for you - to not read - before you comment further. FYI, i won't. But it's an interesting topic if you like to give it a listen. I do see "the lack of common sense" you were talking about now though.







# 5

* New insights into the physics of the Moon’s origin establish more evidence for Earth’s supernatural design so that it can support life.

So, because we came to exist on a planet with a moon and evolved/adapted to the physic's of such a planetary relationship that in itself is furthur scientific validation for proof of god?

These people are just simply amazing .... *ly stupid.


Again 'ol #5 is a link. Alot of info in that one sentence for sure, and maybe that's how you arrived at your "*ly stupid" position.
Anthropic principals are an interesting topic "design in cosmology" if you will... if i wanted to know more i wonder where i'd go though..

I'll leave the rest alone, it's more-or-less the same thing... ranting. Pick something, actually read the position you're arguing against and then state your case. I'm down for learning something new, i just wouldn't rip apart an argument i haven't read... how do you pull it off?



I don't claim to know it all, I don't claim to have all your answer's. But if religous people are gunna claim to have it, please... put sum damn thought behind it. If god really did create us, he gave us a brain for a reason.


You are so far removed from reality at this point i'm not sure what to say. Creationists don't have or claim to have all the answers, you present these strawmen and circular ramblings and rants that vaguely look like an argument or a point, but not close enough to be interesting as either... and blast those who disagree with you.

To quote a wise scholar and forum philosopher; "please... put sum damn thought behind it". Indeed you have a brain for a reason. We're all looking for the same answers and everyone has an opinion. Don't act like you're some objective seeker of truth, you have proven without any doubt that you are not. Don't think me narrow-minded, stupid or naive because i believe in GOD and don't accept your cosmic-accident as my creator... i'll show you that same respect okay? We can argue our ideologies or world-views based on their merit not our 'feelings'... so long as we're talking science and not philosophy that is.

edit-

PhoenixByrd

BANNED MEMBER

Registered: 7-11-2005

Mood:
Member was on ATS
27 minutes ago.



What i miss? Guess i was just talking to myself there. Oh well.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Ok i found this on talkdesign.org. It's a very long paper that's way over my head. I still haven't finished it yet, and could probably read it 100 times and still not get it. I have skimmed it and pulled some relevant info out.


The paper is called; "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum" N. J. Matzke (last updated Nov '04)

Here's the recommended backgroung reading with a link to the paper.

From link
The article "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum" is an attempt to put forward a reasonably detailed model for the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is a complex structure that some bacteria use for swimming, and it has featured prominently in the arguments of the "Intelligent Design" movement. The article is long and somewhat technical, and may not be readily accessible to many readers. This page attempts to give readers some background, and recommend some introductory material that will (hopefully) make the full article much more digestible. Suggestions for further improvements along these lines are welcome.



Image (fig. 7) taken from the 4. Conclusions section of Matzske's paper.

Figure 7: Summary of the evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum, showing the six major stages and key intermediates. White components have identified or reasonably probable nonflagellar homologs; grey components have either suggested but unsupported homologs, or no specific identified homologs, although ancestral functions can be postulated.


I have heard of this paper but admittedly this stuff is over my head. I think it appropriate to provide the only evolutionary model for the bacterial flagellum that i'm aware of.

Michael Behe wrote a reply to this paper and put it on Dembski's website., www.designinference.com...
Biology in the Subjunctive Mood: (Nov '03)

*A little of the "web drama"...

Before reviewing and critiquing Matzke's article, I want to offer a few remarks about Matzke himself and my past interactions with him. Matzke's day job is as a geography graduate student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Nonetheless, he is also one of the most active participants in online discussions concerning evolution and intelligent design (the sheer volume of text that he is able to generate is remarkable). In such forums, he tends to go by various pseudonyms. His main one until a year or two ago, when he blew his cover by publicly attacking Jonathan Wells at UCSD, was "Nic Tamzek." On the ARN bulletin board (www.arn.org) he has used "Niiicholas." On the ISCID bulletin board (www.iscid.org), through which I know him best, he goes by "Yersinia." He uses still other pseudonyms in other forums (as in the Talk Origins newsgroup).


*Behe don't appear to be too worried...

In fact, such claims by Matzke about what his article is supposed to have demonstrated are highly misleading. Matzke at one point in his article refers to the bacterial flagellum as an "icon of intelligent design." Certainly it's understandable (and even commendable) that as a Darwinian he should want to knock this icon down. But to do so he must make good on his claim to provide a detailed, testable, step-by-step Darwinian model of how the bacterial flagellum could have originated. Unfortunately for him, that claim is false under any reasonable construal of the terms "detailed," "testable," and "step-by-step." The further claim that he has significantly undercut intelligent design is therefore false as well.


*Matzke all bark and no bite?...

For starters, let's do some simple bookkeeping. My print-out of Matzke's essay weighs in at 58 pages single-spaced. Of these, 13 pages are devoted to references. Another 14 pages are devoted to figures. That leaves 32 pages for his actual argument. Of these, 3 pages are devoted to concluding remarks reviewing and plugging his model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. In addition, the first 10 pages of the essay are stage-setting, describing past research that attempts to get a handle on the flagellum and its origin. Thus only 20 pages of the article are in fact devoted to Matzke's actual model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

Why are these page numbers significant? They are significant as a reality check. The bacterial flagellum is a marvel of nano-engineering. As Matzke himself admits, thousands of research articles have been written about it, many of them trying simply to discover the role and function of its various components. Howard Berg describes the bacterial flagellum as "the most efficient machine in the universe." If a biotech engineering firm were required to draw up blueprints and design specifications for the construction of the bacterial flagellum, it would require thousands of pages.


Anyways i guess i got alot of reading to do, just thought I'd get this in the thread and see what you guys think about it.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
The paper is called; "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum" N. J. Matzke (last updated Nov '04)


My apologies Rren, I thought you were familiar with this paper. I've definitely mentioned it in the forums before. I commonly refer to it as 'Matzke's horrifically cobbled together piece of garbage.'

It is extremely noteworthy that this 'model' of the bacterial flagellum is not in a peer-reviewed publication. I've not read it for sometime though, and will read the updated version.

I've known it would come up here for some time, I suppose now is as good a time as any to re-read the paper and discuss specifics. You'll have to give me some time though. The other thing is that my internet connection is still not working at home due to the ice storms in the Asheville area, so most of my ATS stuff is on the fly at work, and I can't devote a huge amount of time to it.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Rren
The paper is called; "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum" N. J. Matzke (last updated Nov '04)


My apologies Rren, I thought you were familiar with this paper. I've definitely mentioned it in the forums before. I commonly refer to it as 'Matzke's horrifically cobbled together piece of garbage.'


Yeah i had heard of it by name only, but don't usually read the technical stuff. I try but it's usually pointless because i can't 'keep up'. Usually i can find a 'layman's version' or i'll read a rebuttal which helps me to focus on what's in dispute. From what i can gather the dispute is that the paper is incomplete... but in all honesty i have no clue.



It is extremely noteworthy that this 'model' of the bacterial flagellum is not in a peer-reviewed publication. I've not read it for sometime though, and will read the updated version.


Yes i did know that. In fairness to Matzke i think he's a geologist who has been a participant in the online debates over ID and evolution. He said that there wasn't a evolutionary model for the bacterial flagellum so he thought he'd take a crack at it. I don't know that he thought it would be peer-reviewed. I think i read that he hoped it may be used for a starting point for someone more expert in biology to build on later.




I've known it would come up here for some time, I suppose now is as good a time as any to re-read the paper and discuss specifics. You'll have to give me some time though. The other thing is that my internet connection is still not working at home due to the ice storms in the Asheville area, so most of my ATS stuff is on the fly at work, and I can't devote a huge amount of time to it.



Cool, thanks. I'm on my second pass now, lol. I doubt i'd ever have anything to contribute to a debate on this level. I thought given the thread topic it was a good idea to provide an evolutionary model for a protein structure. Even if incomplete, it's a starting place and the only model that i'm aware of.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
In fairness to Matzke i think he's a geologist who has been a participant in the online debates over ID and evolution.


Why is it always the geologists? Or someone who read 1 geology book and tried to apply it to biology? *cough* Darwin *cough*. Would you ask a podiatrist to do surgery on your brain? Why not? A podiatrist and a brain surgeon are both doctors


[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Yes i did know that. In fairness to Matzke i think he's a geologist who has been a participant in the online debates over ID and evolution.

Matzke is also on the staff of the NCSE, and I don't think I need to explain who they are to you. But apparently, Matzke does have a BS in bio...


Cool, thanks. I'm on my second pass now, lol. I doubt i'd ever have anything to contribute to a debate on this level. I thought given the thread topic it was a good idea to provide an evolutionary model for a protein structure. Even if incomplete, it's a starting place and the only model that i'm aware of.


Forget about the existing rebuttals for now. We can go through each of his assertions in a stepwise fashion. Do you have a link to a .pdf of this file. I really hate reading things on the computer. I need to be able to mark up my copy. I copied and pasted to word, but the document is like 74 pages. If I have to print that I will. If you know of a .pdf it will make it easier.

Saint... my reply to you has been delayed because of my lack of an internet connection at home. I can't write a reply to you off the cuff.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
But apparently, Matzke does have a BS in bio...


7 credits until I get mine. Left college for work opportunity, but after merger, may be reimbursed if I go back to pick it up.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Saint... my reply to you has been delayed because of my lack of an internet connection at home. I can't write a reply to you off the cuff.


No worries, it's been a busy season because of merger and Christmas for me too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join