Intelligent design not science: experts [70,000 Aussie Scientists liken I.D. to 'spoon bending']

I don't. I believe in ID as a matter of science.

From what I've seen of your previous posts, I doubt that.

Even the simplest cell is a machine.

...for a sufficiently broad definition of the word "machine".

Machines are built. They require a designer.

The fallacy of equivocation rides again! "Nothing is better than a first-class steak, stale bread is better than nothing, therefore stale bread is better than a first-class steak".

Needs work.

Hint: You are using shifting definitions of "machine" between your first claim and your second. Additionally, you are presuming your conclusion. Not only does this *not* rise to the level of "science", it isn't even rational.

Evolution theory is equivalent to a tornado passing over a junkyard and leaving behind a fully assembled functional jumbo jet.by chance.

1000% wrong. And stop stealing your examples from Hoyle, try to be original for once.

Evolution is the result of *three* interacting processes. Your "tornado in a junkyard" chestnut models only *ONE* of them. Therefore, it is trivially obvious that it is an invalid analogy to evolution itself.

Of course, this has been explained to you already. Did you not understand the prior explanations, or are you just dishonestly pretending that this goofy creationist "argument" has not already been refuted?

It has about the same complexity as a simple cell. The odds are far beyond impossible by scientific explanation.

Only if, like all the creationists who don't know the first thing about evolutionary biology, you make the bone-headed mistake of trying to model evolution by such a grossly inappropriate model as "tornados in junkyards"...

Why don't you folks try to actually *learn* biology before you attempt to critique it?

Now, if you want to believe God did it, fine, if not, fine again. But SOMETHING intelligent did. It didn't happen by itself.

You see to have left out the "because..." part. You know, the part where you provide actual evidence and test your presumptions, provide a valid line of reasoning that is in accordance with the full body of available evidence, etc. THAT is what would be required to actually "believe in ID as a matter of science". To date, however, none of the hand-waving rationalizations provided by yourself or the leading lights of the "ID movement" have provided anything even *remotely* resembling actual science.

SCIENCE will eventually lead us to the answers.

One could argue that it already has.

But you can't pursue science with a closed mind.

We don't. I can't say the same about the people whose minds are clamped tightly closed in a vice-like manner against the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

If you exclude ID than you exclude entire theories which could develop into usefull discoveries.

We're not "excluding ID" as a possibility, we're just pointing out that to date, "ID" is a matter of faith, not science, since there's no evidence or original research which actually supports it.

Evolution theory has lead us nowhere, it's time to look elsewhere.

ROFL!!!! Wow, you really *are* grossly ignorant of biology, aren't you? Evolutionary biology has been an *incredibly* productive field.

Evolution is a philosophy of science or paradigm similar to that described by Thomas Kuhn. I recall this year's Nobel Prize winners in medicine (bacteria major cause of ulcers) were previously deemed loonies by the science community. This is a clear paradigm shift by the science community on uclers, but no one has the guts to say science can be wrong. Look at global warming. Comnputer models trying to predict decades in advance atmospheric conditions while we can't even predict the intensity of a hurricane 5 days out. NWS admits it can't do it. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea that science is nothing but "fact." It's laced with politics, philosophy, and prejudices and to think not is silly. I have no trouble teaching evolution (doesn't rule out a designing intelligence), but when a new paradigm crack or shift comes into the scientific community look who's narrow minded.

Invasion-of-the-retarded-trolls placemarker.

In fact, TOE goes out of it's way to IGNORE science in order to avoid the questions it brings up against the theory.

Please stop posting utter falsehoods, it only makes you look grossly dishonest and/or ignorant.

Take the eyeball for example. How could vision have evolved?

Gradually from light-sensing nerves, as are present in many primitive organisms.

The earliest known life forms, trilobites,

Complete horse manure. Trilobites are hardly "the earliest known life forms". From what creationist Crackerjack Box do you get your "science"?

<> had complex eyes. far more complex than the human eye.

Utter horse manure #2. Please state your source, so we can laugh at it.

Because the eye is made up of components, it could not have evolved, because each component is useless without the rest of them. optic nerves, lenses, retina's rods cones, the vision center of the brain. each would have been useless without any one of the other components.

Wrong, but then you'd have to know a tiny little bit about biology to know why. Which is why that leaves out most of the creationists.

Euglenids have functional eyespots, and get along just fine *without* most of the things you list. Oops, so much for your false presumptions.

Cubomedusans have eyes, but not "vision centers" in their brains. Truth be told, they don't really have "brains" either, they have simple nerve ganglions. Even worse for your presumptions, larval cubomedusans don't have *any* nervous system, and the more primitive eyes among its multiplicity of eye types are literally hardwired directly to cilia which move one way when light is detected by its attached eye, and another way when light is not detected. In this way the larva moves appropriately (well, usually) in the presence of light in a purely reflexive manner, with *no* involvement of (or processing by) a nervous system of any type whatsoever. Sorry, you're proven wrong again by nature.

Speaking of nature, here are several types of light-sensing organs actually found in nature (from How Do Eyes Work and How Did They Evolve? ):

Contrary to your false presumptions, eyes with fewer components than human eyes work well enough to get along after all, *and* there's an obvious stepwise progression between the types:

Fig. 2
The likely evolution of single-chambered eyes. Arrows indicate functional developments, not specific evolutionary pathways.
From Land and Fernald [4].

a Pit eye, common throughout the lower phyla.

b Pinhole of Haliotis (abalone) or Nautilus.

c Eye with a lens.

d Eye with homogeneous lens, showing failure to focus.

e Eye with lens having a gradient of refractive index.

f Multiple lens eye of male Pontella.

g Two-lens eye of the copepod crustacean Copilia. Solid arrow shows image position and open arrow the movement of the second lens.

h Terrestrial eye of Homo sapiens with cornea and lens;
Ic= image formed by cornea alone;
Ir= final image on the retina.

i Mirror eye of the scallop Pecten.

Also see the video at: evolution of the eye.

Care to try again?

Even Darwin admitted later that his evolution theory probably is wrong because of these facts.

Again, will you PLEASE stop posting utter falsehoods? This claim of yours is ridiculous and false. It's obviously just a rehash of the usual dishonest creationist out-of-context Darwin quote about the eye. What's *especially* dishonest about the misuse of this quote is that the original appears at the start of a section where Darwin LAID OUT A PLAUSIBLE EVOLUTIONARY PATH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EYES, based on KNOWN PRIMITIVE EYES IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. In other words, not only was Darwin *NOT* actually claiming that the complexity of the eye was a problem for evolution (as misrepresented by creationists), he actually went on to ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT CREATIONISTS HAVE BEEN ASKING EVER SINCE. Just *how* willfully ignorant does one have to be in order to remain a creationist? They steal quotes from 1859, misuse them, then ask "challenging" questions that were ALREADY answered in that same 1859 source. Just how dishonest, ignorant, and behind on their reading are the creationists, anyway?

Try reading some actual Darwin and some actual biology sometime, guys. Maybe you'll stop making fools of yourselves for a change.

Then there DNA, a complex language that just isn't possible to have 'evolved.

...you emptily declare, based on your failure to grasp how it could have... Hint: Nature is not limited to what you, personally, are able to comprehend.

Even the simplest cell has an entire library of information in it's DNA.

Define "simplest cell". We'll wait.

Spontaneous? LMAO!

Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."

If you want to think so, go ahead. But that's not 'science"

It is, actually, because unlike your own uninformed presumptions, that conclusion is based on a large body of evidence and research. Deal with it or keep braying laughter, your choice.

If scientists must run pell mell into the arms of lawyers, judges, and now, JOURNALISTS, to make their case about 'science' of evolution, what, EXACTLY, does this imply about how fantastically a terrible job they are doing teaching the 'truth' about evolution,

The teaching of evolution isn't the problem. The problem is the vast armies of ignorant and dishonest creationists who go around lying about science in order to attack it when it seems to raise uncomfortable questions about certain religious beliefs.

*Any* subject, no matter how well grounded, is going to have the public's confidence in it shaken when there are organized propaganda campaigns relentlessly making false claims against it. This is known as the "big lie" technique -- if enough people declare a falsehood often enough, the public begins to think that it must be true. And this is exactly what the creationists have been doing for over a hundred years: spreading the Big Lie about evolutionary biology.

It's the same thing as has happened to the obvious benefits and effectiveness of capitalism -- despite the overwhelming evidence of the value of capitalism, armies of socialist/communist propagandists have managed to "question" it loudly and often enough that significant numbers of Americans actually believe that capitalism is evil and exploitive.

Creationists are the Michael Moores of the conservative movement, and are reaping similar results.

which, I've been told over and over, is as solid as our understanding as gravity.

And it is. But like understanding the geopolitics of the overthrow of Saddam, it's far easier for most people to grasp a falsehood like "Bush lied for oil!" than it is to take the time to learn and understand the greater complexities of the truth. A facile lie is always more seductive than the work it takes to actually understand the real situation.

Look ... folks don't get in a lather about gravity.

...because the creationists haven't yet decided that it's a challenge to their shaky faith.

But when huge problems about evolution erupt,

The only "huge problems about evolution" are the huge lies the creationists tell about it.

we're all a bunch of idiots, not seeing the 'effects' of evolution, the way we see the 'effects' of gravity.

On *that*, I couldn't agree with you more. I have yet to have a conversation with an anti-evolutionist where I was in the least impressed with their knowledge or reasoning powers. Often simple reading comprehension is a real problem for them. And most, unfortunately, have no problem whatsoever outright lying.

The flaws in TOE are endless. Funny they never teach that.

They would if it were true. However, they're right not to teach these frequent creationist lies about evolution.

Have you got anything that actually holds water for a change?

It's pointless to try argue with these guys.

Indeed, because we know what we're talking about, and you don't, as you have so ably demonstrated scores of times.

these treads always go the same way. the Evo team shows up and starts insulting everyone.

...by pointing out that you really, really do not know what in the heck you're talking about. If that sort of "insult" bothers you, then stop spewing nonsense and falsehoods.

there is a reason for this. hey have no "science" to back up their claims.

Please answer the following question: Do you say this because a) you're really *that* grossly ignorant of the vast body of science in evolutionary biology, or b) you're like a lot of creationists and don't mind bald-faced lying?

Go to www.pubmed.com and do a search on "evolution", and start reading the 160,000+ research papers on evolution you're pretending don't exist.

So again, let us know: Are you an idiot, or just a liar?

Just the same old drawings and picures of monkey skulls and other fraudulant material which has been disproven over and over again.

Wrong twice over: No, that's not "just" all there is, and no, they haven't been "disproven over and over again". I'm sorry to have to inform you that being lied about by creationists is not the same thing as being "disproven".

Do you people realize how poorly you reflect on Christianity and the conservative movement? Or are you just a liberal troll trying to *make* the right look like a home for blithering know-nothings? If so, then you're doing a great job.

I don't see how they can demand that one THEORY is more valid than another THEORY.

Lets define some terms (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Belief: any cognitive content held as true

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory whether you like it or not. CS and ID are beliefs.

The effort to equate the two is just one of the many falsehoods disseminated by IDers.

They don't need to actually show PROOF of their THEORY.

If you say so.

All they have to say is "Well, it's LOGICAL" therefore making the opposer out to be an idiot without any scientific backing of their theory.

Utter horse manure from start to finish. If I had *tried* to pack a single sentence with so many fallacies, I don't think I could have done as well as you have. You're misrepresenting science, you're misrepresenting evolutinary biology, you're misrepresenting the objections to the "opposers", and you're misrepresenting the enormous amount of scientific backing for evolutionary theory.

Once again, we have to wonder: Ignorance, or dishonesty?

While I don't think God made the Earth and Adam in six days, I at least can say I don't KNOW. And neither does anyone else.

*I* know, even if you don't. That's because I'm familiar with the vast amount of evidence.

As I said in an earlier post. Both are theories and should be treated as such.

Utter nonsense. Evolutionary biology is a theory, in every scientific sense of the word. "ID" or creationism or "anti-evolutionism" most certainly is not.

"nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever could"

Really? Show us your evidence for this presumption of yours. And be sure to rigorously define "something" and "nothing". Also attempt to explain what relevance this has to the post to which you are responding, since none of my points depend upon presumptions such as "something came from nothing".

The problem is asking where the 'simpler life' came from.

Why is that a "problem"?

Of course, when the Left demands that the aboriginal dreamtime rather than European science be taught as factual these same cowardly scientists will fold like origami.

Not only does this *not* rise to the level of "science", it isn't even rational.

Give him a break. He's Canadian.

Of course, when the Left demands that the aboriginal dreamtime rather than European science be taught as factual these same cowardly scientists will fold like origami.

Aboriginal dreamtime is more likely as an alternative to creationism than to science.

To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions

The door of science classes might remain closed to these and other phenomena having slim evidence, but Bacon urged the study of such topics as part of a well-rounded education. Science teaching might well be mocked, but not by these topics.

I offer you the evolutionists slight problem: the 'how blood coagulates' system.

Problem? What problem? Check out The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting, or The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. Excerpt from the latter paper:

It is thought that 50–100 million years separate the appearances of urochordates (which include the sea squirt) and vertebrates. During that time the machinery for thrombin-catalyzed fibrin formation had to be concocted by gene duplication and the shuffling about of key modular domains. The relative times of duplicative events can be estimated by various means, the most obvious being the presence or absence of a gene in earlier diverging organisms, although it must be kept in mind that lineages may lose genes. Another way to gauge events is from the relative positions of various gene products on phylogenetic trees, earlier branching implying earlier appearance. In this regard, (pro)thrombin invariably appears lower on the phylogenetic trees than do the other vitamin K-dependent factors (Fig. 2).
The order of events can also be inferred by considering the most parsimonious route to assembling the various clusters of peripheral domains. Nine of the proteases under discussion can be accounted for by six domain-swapping events (Fig. 5). Indeed, the presence of a multiple-kringle protease in the sea squirt genome provides a reasonable model for a step-by-step parallel evolution of the clotting and lysis systems. It should be noted that a serine protease with only one kringle has been found in the ascidian Herdmania momus (36). Although numerous scenarios have been offered in the past about how modular exchange was involved in generating these schemes (refs. 4, 12, and 37–41, inter alia), the new genomic data now provide a realistic set of starting materials.

Also, Evolution of enzyme cascades from embryonic development to blood coagulation:

Recent delineation of the serine protease cascade controlling dorsal-ventral patterning during Drosophila embryogenesis allows this cascade to be compared with those controlling clotting and complement in vertebrates and invertebrates. The identification of discrete markers of serine protease evolution has made it possible to reconstruct the probable chronology of enzyme evolution and to gain new insights into functional linkages among the cascades. Here, it is proposed that a single ancestral developmental/immunity cascade gave rise to the protostome and deuterostome developmental, clotting and complement cascades. Extensive similarities suggest that these cascades were built by adding enzymes from the bottom of the cascade up and from similar macromolecular building blocks.

That was the abstract. An excerpt from the text:

The downstream protease of the vertebrate clotting cascade (Fig. 1d), thrombin, belongs to the same lineage as complement factors C1r and C1s. The upstream and middle proteases of the clotting cascade (factors VII, IX and X) belong to the most modern lineage, that of horseshoe crab clotting factor C. Therefore, the lineage of thrombin is parental to that of the upstream and middle proteases of the clotting cascade (Table 1) and distinguishes it from the other vitamin-K-dependent clotting proteases (factors VII, IX and X, and protein C). This conclusion agrees with sequence and species comparisons implying that thrombin was the ancestral blood-clotting protein [11]. It also suggests that vertebrate blood clotting emerged as a by-product of innate immunity, because the entire functional core of vertebrate clotting shares ancestry with complement proteases.

And if that's not enough, you could check these out:

Banyai, L., Varadi, A. and Patthy, L. (1983). “Common evolutionary origin of the fibrin-binding structures of fibronectin and tissue-type plasminogen activator.” FEBS Letters, 163(1): 37-41.

Bazan, J. F. (1990). “Structural design and molecular evolution of a cytokine receptor superfamily.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(18): 6934-6938.

Blake, C. C. F., Harlos, K. and Holland, S. K. (1987). “Exon and Domain Evolution in the Proenzymes of Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Evolution of Catalytic Function, LII: 925-932.

Fornace AJ Jr, Cummings DE, Comeau CM, Kant JA, Crabtree GR. “The Structure of the human gamma-fibrinogen gene. Alternate mRNA splicing near the 3' end of the gene produces gamma A and gamma B forms of gamma-fibrinogen.” J Biol Chem. 1984 Oct 25;259(20):12826-30.

Crabtree, G. R., Comeau, C. M., Fowlkes, D. M., Fornace, A. J., Jr., Malley, J. D. and Kant, J. A. (1985). “Evolution and structure of the fibrinogen genes: Random insertion of introns or selective loss?” Journal of Molecular Biology, 185(1): 1-20.

Di Cera, E., Dang, Q. D. and Ayala, Y. M. (1997). “Molecular mechanisms of thrombin function.” Cell Mol Life Sci, 53(9): 701-730.

Doolittle, R. F. (1985). “More homologies among the vertebrate plasma proteins.” Biosci Rep, 5(10-11): 877-884.

Doolittle, R. F. (1990). “The Structure and Evolution of Vertebrate Fibrinogen A Comparison of the Lamprey and Mammalian Proteins,” in ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY: FIBRINOGEN, THROMBOSIS, COAGULATION, AND FIBRINOLYSIS. C. Y. Liu and Chien, S. New York, Plenum Press. 281.

Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “A detailed consideration of a principal domain of vertebrate fibrinogen and its relatives.” Protein Science, 1(12): 1563-1577.

Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Fibrinogen Molecule.” Biophysical Journal, 61(2 PART 2): A410.

Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “Stein and Moore Award address. Reconstructing history with amino acid sequences.” Protein Science, 1(2): 191-200.

Doolittle, R. F. (1993). “The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation - a Case of Yin and Yang.” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, V70(N1): 24-28.

Doolittle, R. F. and Feng, D. F. (1987). “Reconstructing the Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation from a Consideration of the Amino Acid Sequences of Clotting Proteins.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Evolution of Catalytic Function, LII: 869-874.

Doolittle, R. F., G., Spraggon and J., Everse S. (1997). “Evolution of vertebrate fibrin formation and the process of its dissolution.” Ciba Found Symp, 212: 4-17; discussion 17-23.

Doolittle, R. F. and Riley, M. (1990). “The amino-terminal sequence of lobster fibrinogen reveals common ancestry with vitellogenins.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 167(1): 16-19.

Edgington, T. S., Curtiss, L. K. and Plow, E. F. (1985). “A linkage between the hemostatic and immune systems embodied in the fibrinolytic release of lymphocyte suppressive peptides.” Journal of Immunology, 134(1): 471-477.

Ghidalia, W., Vendrely, R., Montmory, C., Coirault, Y., Samama, M., Lucet, B., Bellay, A. M. and Vergoz, D. (1989). “Overall study of the in vitro plasma clotting system in an invertebrate, Liocarcinus puber (Crustacea Decapoda): Considerations on the structure of the Crustacea plasma fibrinogen in relation to evolution.” Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 53(2): 197-205.

Hervio, L. S., Coombs, G. S., Bergstrom, R. C., Trivedi, K., Corey, D. R. and Madison, E. L. (2000). “Negative selectivity and the evolution of protease cascades: the specificity of plasmin for peptide and protein substrates.” Chemistry & Biology, V7(N6): 443-452.

Hewett-Emmett, D., Czelusniak, J. and Goodman, M. (1981). “The evolutionary relationship of the enzymes involved in blood coagulation and hemostasis.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 370(20): 511-527.

Holland, S. K., Harlos, K. and Blake, C. C. F. (1987). “Deriving the generic structure of the fibronectin type II domain from the prothrombin Kringle 1 crystal structure.” EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) Journal, 6(7): 1875-1880.

Jordan, R. E. (1983). “Antithrombin in vertebrate species: conservation of the heparin-dependent anticoagulant mechanism.” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 227(2): 587-595.

Kant, J. A., Fornace, A. J., Jr., Saxe, D., Simon, M. J., McBride, O. W. and Crabtree, G. R. (1985). “Evolution and organization of the fibrinogen locus on chromosome 4: Gene duplication accompanied by transposition and inversion.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 82(8): 2344-2348.

Kornblihtt, A. R., Pesce, C. G., Alonso, C. R., Cramer, P., Srebrow, A., Werbajh, S. and Muro, A. F. (1996). “The fibronectin gene as a model for splicing and transcription studies.” FASEB Journal, 10(2): 248-257.

Laki, K. (1972). “Our ancient heritage in blood clotting and some of its consequences.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 202(4): 297-307.

Neurath, H. (1984). “Evolution of proteolytic enzymes.” Science, 224(4647): 350-357.

Neurath, H. (1986). “The Versatility of Proteolytic Enzymes.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 32(1): 35-50.

Oldberg, A. and Ruoslahti, E. (1986). “Evolution of the fibronectin gene: Exon structure of cell attachment domain.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 261(5): 2113-2116.

Opal, S. M. (2000). “Phylogenetic and functional relationships between coagulation and the innate immune response.” Critical Care Medicine, V28(N9 SUPPS): S77-S80.

Pan, Y. and Doolittle, R. F. (1991). “Distribution of Introns in Lamprey Fibrinogen Genes.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Supplement(15 PART D): 75.

Pan, Y. and Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “cDNA sequence of a second fibrinogen alpha chain in lamprey: an archetypal version alignable with full-length beta and gamma chains.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89(6): 2066-2070.

Patthy, L. (1985). “Evolution of the Proteases of Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis by Assembly from Modules.” Cell, 41(3): 657-664.

Patthy, L. (1990). “Evolution of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis.” Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis, 1(2): 153-166.

Patthy, L. (1990). “Evolutionary Assembly of Blood Coagulation Proteins.” Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, 16(3): 245-259.

Patthy, L. (1999). “Genome evolution and the evolution of exon-shuffling—a review.” Gene, 238(1): 103-114.

Roberts, Lewis R., Nichols, Lanita A. and Holland, Lene J. (1995). “CDNA and amino-acid sequences and organization of the gene encoding the B-beta subunit of fibrinogen from Xenopus laevis.” Gene (Amsterdam), 160(2): 223-228.

Sosnoski, D. M., Emanuel, B. S., Hawkins, A. L., Van Tuinen, P., Ledbetter, D. H., Nussbaum, R. L., Kaos, F. T., Schwartz, E., Phillips, D. and et al. (1988). “Chromosomal localization of the genes for the vitronectin and fibronectin receptors .alpha. subunits and for platelet glycoproteins IIb and IIIa.” Journal of Clinical Investigation, 81(6): 1993-1998.

Wang, Y. Z., Patterson, J., Gray, J. E., Yu, C., Cottrell, B. A., Shimizu, A., Graham, D., Riley, M. and Doolittle, R. F. (1989). “Complete sequence of the lamprey fibrinogen .alpha. chain.” Biochemistry, 28(25): 9801-9806.

Xu, X. and Doolittle, R. F. (1990). “Presence of a vertebrate fibrinogen-like sequence in an echinoderm.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(6): 2097-2101.

Zhang, Y. L., Hervio, L., Strandberg, L. and Madison, E. L. (1999). “Distinct contributions of residue 192 to the specificity of coagulation and fibrinolytic serine proteases.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, V274(N11): 7153-7156.

Zimmermann, E. (1983). “[The evolution of the coagulation system from primitive defense mechanisms].” Behring Institute Mitteilungen, 82(73): 1-12.

The 2.0-Å crystal structure of tachylectin 5A provides evidence for the common origin of the innate immunity and the blood coagulation systems

Davidson CJ, Tuddenham EG, McVey JH. 450 million years of hemostasis J Thromb Haemost. 2003 Jul;1(7):1487-94.

Yeah, but does he have to take it out on everyone else?

Aboriginal dreamtime is more likely as an alternative to creationism than to science.

And your "freethinking" scientific heroes would roll over like a scolded dog, probably adding a number of "mea culpas" and criticism of "western-style linean thought" into the bargain.

Actually he's American when posting on FR and Canadian when posting on FreeDominion. But then what's truth to a troll?

Aboriginal dreamtime is more likely as an alternative to creationism than to science.

And your "freethinking" scientific heroes would roll over like a scolded dog, probably adding a number of "mea culpas" and criticism of "western-style linean thought" into the bargain.

Not sure what you mean by that. I don't recall any such thoughts in my post to you.

Not sure what you mean by that. I don't recall any such thoughts in my post to you.

I mean that if aboriginal dreamtime advocates ever made a move to introduce it to public classrooms as an alternative to Eurocentric science these same scientists, who so enjoy attacking Genesis, would not make a peep of protest.

And you knew exactly what I meant. I have no idea why you have to pretend otherwise.