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.
You persist in putting words and ideas into other people's mouths. He isn't talking about evolution at all! He's talking about how DNA works! You are the one who keeps insisting the all Nobel Prize winners have disproved evolution. Baltimore hasn't disproved it; which is blisteringly obvious from the man's own words. You were lying when you made the ridiculous claim about all Nobel Prize winners disproving evolution, and you continue to distort, evade, and obfuscate to maintain your lie.
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.
The logic the rest of us use would dictate that he has no disproof, because he continues to study the subject! Again, you are the one who claimed that all Nobel Prize winners disproved evolution. You're zero-for-two.
Therefore the only valid scientific explanation at this time, the only one supported by science is that DNA was intelligently designed
This statement is utterly unsupported by logic. Outside the ID community, no one anywhere believes it. And two Nobel Prize winners whose work you've cited as support for your position in fact believe evolution happened. Zero-for-three.
... and evolutionists have absolutely no evidence supporting the evolutionary development of such systems.
First it was "no proof," now it's "no evidence." There is abundant evidence; your willful blindness doesn't mean it's not there.
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.[sic]
Your memory hole is working over time. The posts to this thread explaining "metaphor" to you are still here, aren't they? Go back and re-read them. You've also grafted the idea of random selection into a place where no one but you believes it applies. Your attempts to distort the words and ideas of others have reached new depths.
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.
Congratulations, your ignorance borders on total and is rapidly expanding into the delusional. You are now asserting that not only is there no proof of evolution, you are now asserting there is no evidence.
What you so cutely try to pass off as "attacking the messenger," is a recognized debating tactic: Catching your opponent in a deliberate fraud. You were zero-for-two on the Nobel Prize winning experts you chose, and when it was pointed out, you changed the subject from "disproving evolution" to "failing to prove evolution," or "assuming evolution."
I'm not attacking the messenger at all. I'm attacking the liar.