Replies

From the article, and this is just one example: Early vertebrates like jawless fish are thought to have had a simple clotting system involving a few proteins that made blood stick together, said Russell Doolittle, a professor of molecular biology at the University of California at San Diego.

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.

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.

A hypothesis in this case is, at best, a SWAG, if not simply a WAG.

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?