==This paper could not stand up to peer-review outside of the pseudoscince world known as “Intelligent Design”
Alex Williams is a Creationist writing for the Journal of Creation. I used to be surprised by some of the ignorant things that came out of your mouth, but now I realize they are the norm.
Was the quote incorrect? Did it not come directly from the paper that you linked?
That quote can be found on page 22 :
“Conclusion
Let’s stand back consider the big picture of how life
works at the molecular level.
Life consists of conserved core processes and modular
regulatory circuits. All the special properties of the
conserved processes had to be in place before regulatory
evolution could take place. Where did they come from?
‘They may have emerged together as a suite, for we know
of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite.’
‘The novelty and complexity of the cell [the
most important conserved core processes that has
modular regulatory circuitry built-in] is so far
beyond anything inanimate in the world of today
that we are left baffled by how it was achieved.’
A living organism is ‘a poised response system
[that] responds to mutation by making changes it is
largely prepared in advance to make.’ ‘Genetic variation
or mutation does not have to be creative; it only needs to
trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms.’
It could not be otherwise, because invariable life would
soon become extinct.
Who will be game enough to say the words? Only
intelligent design can explain such data. There are no
naturalistic explanations.”
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_85-92.pdf
So the author in incorrect, I wonder how such a blatant error made through the very rigorous peer-review process that this paper was subject to?
It is interesting how you attacked me for being ignorant for correctly quoting the author of this paper, but failed to address my question to you.