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.
It's a thrill just to lurk here.
Shall we repeat that again, to help it sink in?
Yup, Baltimore himself stated that his comment about his discovery "It will be the work of at least the next half-century to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice build over 4 billion years of evolution." In other words he cannot back up his assumption that this is explainable by evolution and he does not even think that it can be shown in his lifetime.
Hartwell again shows that his claim is an assumption and that he is going to try to find the answer to how possibly such a thing could have arisen through evolution "My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution." In other words he has no proof of his assumption either.
Therefore the only valid scientific explanation at this time, the only one supported by science is that DNA was intelligently designed and evolutionists have absolutely no evidence supporting the evolutionary development of such systems. In fact, developmental biologists call the process by which the human organism develops from conception to birth a program. Programs cannot be constructed or altered at random as evolution claims it works.
So yes, my statement is correct and neither you nor any of your friends can disprove any of the evidence or any of the interpretations I have given for that evidence. Neither you nor any evolutionist has or can give evidence showing that any of these systems could have arisen in an evolutionary manner. I have given evidence how according to Darwin's own test for the truth of evolutionary theory, these systems could not have arisen in an evolutionary way. So laugh all you like, you are just a buffoon who cannot even discuss the facts and must try to discredit them by attacking the messenger.