Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover 'Intelligent Design' trial

Nature Immunology ^ | May 6, 2006 | Andrea Bottaro, Matt A Inlay & Nicholas J Matzke

[Right Wing Professor]

Again, you don't seem to know what gene means compared to genome.

On the contrary, you don't seem to appreciate that the genome is made up of genes, and sometimes, but not always, a substantial amount of other material.

[Right Wing Professor]

Again, you don't seem to know what gene means compared to genome.

On the contrary, you don't seem to appreciate that the genome is made up of genes, and sometimes, but not always, a substantial amount of other material.

[Right Wing Professor]

Please, try to be stay on subject (as you have at times) and refrain from speciousness

HAHAHAHA! This, from a guy who routinely doles out personal attacks, unsolicited personal advice, etc. etc..

[Right Wing Professor]

I agree, which is why I wrote "doesn't seem".

You fail basic logic. We don't know whether or not coding region differences are sufficient to account for all the differences between species. This does not mean that it doesn't seem that they are sufficient.

[freedumb2003]

Can you put me on your ping list? (I should have asked a long time ago)

[Right Wing Professor]

This is irrelevant, becuase nobody has argued that transposons don't drive a lot of evolutionary change. What we have been arguing is whether they are a useful way of analyzing evolution, and constitute the major part of genomic analysis.

[Right Wing Professor]

Does the pseudo hypothesis of evolution expect rational and intelligent people to believe this nonsense?

You're not claiming to be a rational and intelligent person, are you?

[tallhappy]

This is irrelevant, becuase nobody has argued that transposons don't drive a lot of evolutionary change. What we have been arguing is whether they are a useful way of analyzing evolution

Hmmm, one might think that a good way to analyze evolution would be to analyze things that drive evolutionary change (as you now say you aren't arguing).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The hypothesis of evolution is a bunch of crap, not even believable by children."

And yet it is accepted by almost every working scientist, except for a few loony eccentrics. Odd how that happened.

I wonder what recycled creo-troll you are. This was your first crevo thread, and yet you started as obnoxiously as any seasoned creo-warrior. That you Zeeba? We'll be watching you. :)

[js1138]

trollmarker

[js1138]

We know that change occurs. You don't even need to know the underlying cause of change in order to describe it and quantify it.

Evolution is about those changes that affect reproductive success.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I did not start this thread. Someone else did."

I didn't say you started this thread. I said that it was the first crevo thread you have ever posted to (under this name anyway). You've only signed up here within the last week. I was commenting on the wonderfully friendly tone you chose to initiate this Freep name with on the crevo threads.

Not an auspicious start.

[RunningWolf]

hypothesis of evolution is a bunch of crap, not even believable by children

Maybe at one time the hypothesis of evolution might have held some truth to a few people, but it certainly does not ring true now (except maybe to a few people) some with science degrees

W.

[Right Wing Professor]

The hypothesis of evolution is a bunch of crap, not even believable by children.

You are clearly neither rational nor informed. First, you think incorrectly renaming the thing you're criticizing amounts to scoring a point against it. Second, you are ignorant of the undisputed fact that the vast majority of scientists, people who actually know some biology, do subscribe to the theory of evolution.