I don’t know we will see. Maybe we can actually have a corporative conversation sometime 
True. But since all you’ve shown to date is a brutal ignorance of the science under discussion that’s what we have to work with.
No, you’ve provided mountains of evidence. I know that you know very little about biology, and most of what you claim to know is not true. It’s really that obvious, Bill.
I think that’s more evidence about how little you know.
You were bluffing and I called your bluff. If you have to fabricate the most basic terms, you aren’t familiar with the literature and evidence.
No, you made it very clear that you didn’t even know that proteins are inherently sticky and you’ve never heard of a homodimer. If you knew those things, you never would have asked:
Why back down now? Why not go for the gold?
What’s a corporative conversation? I’m not familiar with the adjective.
Cooperative sorry.
On what would we cooperate, exactly?
Discussion of cells and cellular function is a start. How much cancer research have you done?
You still don’t know how to use PubMed, do you?
Completely wrong, my man. The treelike pattern comes from branching and inheritance, not mutation and selection. Now of course there must be changes on the branches to produce the pattern, but those changes could be the result of all manner of things, not limited to random mutation and selection. Could be due to directed mutation and God-mandated reproductive success, and you would get the same result. The treelike pattern, in other words, shows you that there’s common descent, but it doesn’t show you how or why mutations or fixations happen.
1 Like
I would love help evaluating experiments. I have researched several hundred papers on the relation of vitamin d blood levels and cancer. Guidance on how to evaluate methods would be great. I reach conclusions based on having positive experimental results and additional papers confirming the conclusions.
I suppose that’s true for certain senses of “reasonable”, but I certainly don’t find it so. There seems no rational reason to specially create Adam and Eve when there was already a population of perfectly good humans. What’s the point of interbreeding, especially if they don’t contribute any genetic material to the population (genealogical Adam, you recall). It’s difficult to imagine a point to it.
2 Likes
I simply think ID has a tentative role in explaining complex molecular structures where evolution has no viable explanation. You make claims that you cannot support and when you can’t make an argument you resort to logical fallacies like ad hominem and straw-man fallacies. What is it to you if ID gets taught as a part of biological theory?
To me, that would be an enormous travesty. It’s just a fact that ID is not any part of biological theory.
1 Like
I see both you and Neil have an opinion I do not share. This is not a science argument it is an argument over ideology. Claiming evidence of design is a pretty benign argument except for the ideological implications.
There’s a difference between claiming that, and attempting to force that into the curriculum.
Nobody is going to be concerned about what you personally believe.
If you want ID to really be part of biological theory, then you have to do the research and make a convincing case to actual biologists, that using ID ideas will improve their work.
The context of my pointing out that you don’t know how to use PubMed was your asking me how much cancer research I’ve done. If you really knew how to use PubMed, you’d know.
People here have offered, but you’ve rejected all offers to help you.
That’s not how biologists use the verb “to research.”
Nothing you’ve written here is consistent with that claim.
If a science teacher shows the class the bacterial flagellum or the spliceosome and says there is evidence of design so what? Ok this now takes the place of the blind unguided canard. This now empowers the religious right? You guys appear to want to indoctrinate in naturalist philosophy. Why not put it all on the table? The kids are smart let them come to their own conclusions.
If a history teacher tells the class there is evidence the Holocaust is a hoax, so what?
We don’t teach lies to our children Bill. That is non-negotiable. Teach whatever lies about science you want in your own private schools or at home but you won’t do it in public schools.
Yes John I know you have your name of 42 papers. Do you expect me to know the subject of all those papers? I reached out to you to have a reasonable conversation but to no avail. Lets leave it here.
If God uses Evolution… with God all things are possible and work.
Do you really think God miraculously making millions of species, millions of years ago, and then killing them off, to be replaced by yet more miraculously created species - - over and ovet - - without humans around to even see any of them, makes much sense?
Special Creation is refuted by the geological stack that can only be millions of years older than 6000 years ago.