Posted on 09/26/2005 12:14:08 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Why was it painful?
Seeing as it's a fatally flawed defense - YES.
Why did Sealion get banned? :(
No obvious reason. If I had to guess, it's probably because some troll filed a spurious complaint and a weekend mod suspended him without checking into it but, I don't know.
Meme duplication.
Then you clearly don't understand them.
You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?
Sure, since court arguments are based on what *sounds* good (i.e., what can sway the jury), not on what might actually be valid, true, or logically correct.
Remember "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit", and countless other courtroom ploys that were used (and worked) despite their flaws which would have been obvious to anyone who took the time to actually think about them?
Becuaee, oddly enough, I know Behe's 'real' research pretty well, on the physical chemistry of DNA. It's field in which I've also done some research. He wasn't a superstar (in case there's any doubt, nor am I), but he was a competent researcher. And Darwin's Black Box is so contrived, so tendentious, so easily refuted, it could only have been written by a true believer, or a charlatan. Either way, he traded in a good, albeit unspectacular, research career, and the respect of his peers, for the kudos of those who don't know any better.
Fortunately for this case, it's a bench trial instead of a jury trial. From what I've read of the orders he has issued, the judge seems more than competent enough to see through whatever smokescreens the defense puts up.
One hypothesis is that at some point, a mistake during the copying of DNA resulted in the duplication of a gene, increasing the amount of protein produced by that cell.
A hypothesis in this case is, at best, a SWAG, if not simply a WAG.
A hyposthesis is not a fact.
it's been a while since I read Behe's book, but if I recall correctly, his argument for ID was based not so much on an affirmative agrument for ID as is was the illogic of the evolutionary position. If some biochemical facts could not reasonably and logically be explained by the evolutionary model, there must be another explanation. until someone devises another model, one should not so readily discount the ID position.
One should also not underestimate the legal ability of the Thomas More Center attorneys. They are not light-weights. if this were to be a case decided by a jury, I think the defendants would win. With a judge, who can figure since judges could simply ignore the facts and the law.
Djinn
Science by attorney. Oh goody. PI = 3, here we come. School kids in Japan, South Korea and India are rejoicing at the steady weakening or their competition.
Frankly, I think the fact that the Dover Board is represented by the Thomas More attorneys speaks volumes in itself, and not in the defendants favor. If they're really interested in proving that their "intelligent design policy" is not religious in nature, why choose a firm that specializes in promoting Christian interests?
And not that this should make any difference to the outcome of the case, but they're up against Pepper Hamilton, one of the oldest and most prestigious firms in the country.
Although it's been a while since law school, IIRC, the fact pattern in this case almost mirrors one of the earlier Supreme Court "creation science" cases where one of the state legislatures tried to get that into the classroom. Although your posts suggest that you would prefer to believe otherwise, if the judge follows the law, the Dover Board loses this one.
Nylon is a petrochemical. There are organisms and bacteria that digest crude oil.
Aside from philosophical/religeous implications, whether evoluntion or ID is true has no practical effect on the lives of anyone who does not derive an income from the dispute.
You are correct that ID has been totally barren. Evolution, on the other hand ...
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation. Long, but very interesting.
Specific examples of Genetic Algorithms. Practical applications galore!
The origins of food biotechnology.
You find two genes in an adnvaced organism that are very similar, and have sequences consistent with duplication of a single gene, followed by a small degree of change. And we know that during cell replication genes can and do duplicate. You conclude that they were probably duplicates of a single ancestral gene.Your conclusion is a wild-ass guess?
Nylon is not a hydrocarbon, it's a polyamide, and nylonase hydrolyses it at the amide linkage, entirely different chemistry than the enzymes that oxidize natural hydrocarbons.
Aspirin is also a petrochemical. I would advise that if you get a headache, not to apply the same logic. Drinking 20W50 is probably not going to make you feel better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.