I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said. I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution. The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution. In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.
We have a Nobel-class Freeper with us! I refer you to Gore3000's post 715 to this very thread. Behold:
I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.
Shall we repeat that again, to help it sink in? I'll try increasing the font size, too.
I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.
Wow! This should really be in "Breaking News," doncha think?
And as we say in advertising, "But wait, there's more!" Check this out:
I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution.
It apparently needs to be re-stated, for those of us compelled to post in blue, that in no place, at no time, did Dr. Baltimore ever claim his discovery "backs up evolution."
The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution.
Your assessment of the evidence against evolution remains unconvincing.
Baltimore didn't say "how his discovery proved evolution," because he a) Wasn't trying to prove evolution, and b) He probably understands, as you obviously refuse to, that one does not prove theories.
In consecutive sentences, you've asserted that Baltimore has failed to either "back up" or "prove" evolution. Using the same distortion twice did not make it any more convincing. It is possible, given your somewhat eccentric view of mathematics, that you might believe something of zero credence would double its effectiveness in the second stating, but most of us believe that 2 x 0 = 0. (That would be a "zero" on the right side of the "equal" sign with the same numeric value as the "zero" on the left side of the "equal" sign.
In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.
Make that three times.