Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Access Research Network ^ | 1994 | Michael J. Behe

Posted on 10/06/2002 7:44:29 PM PDT by sourcery

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-189 next last
To: Dan Day
Given that you post in the same style as "medved"/"Ted Holden", use several of his idosyncratic (to say the least) arguments, have his same style of ignorance-plus-arrogance, and even use his "Splifford the bat" slogan (along with his ascii art of it), I'm going to have to presume that you *are* Ted Holden unless I receive a lot of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, no evidence, you just pulled it out of your nether regions, a typically Darwininian just-so story.

81 posted on 10/07/2002 2:38:42 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
It is a religious battle pretending to be about science.

Claiming that doesn't make it so.

Creationism is clearly based on religion. So you're half right.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific disipline, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Deal with it, and stop consoling yourself with smug empty bumper-sticker platitudes which sound good but fall apart under ten seconds of examination.

The evolutionists are less honest about it, or perhaps less self aware than the other side.

Yawn. If that helps you sleep at night, don't let me disturb your comforting misconceptions.

If you have an actual case to make, which I highly doubt, now would be the time to present it. If you believe that your one-liners *do* constitute a comprehensive and sufficient case, however, I regret to inform you that slogans are not an actual argument.

82 posted on 10/07/2002 2:39:24 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
What are you babbling about?
83 posted on 10/07/2002 2:42:07 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
In other words, no evidence, you just pulled it out of your nether regions, a typically Darwininian just-so story.

Wow, that sounds just like something Ted would say...

If you think that my pointing out all your incredible similarities to the style, behavior, and content of Ted Holden amounts to "no evidence", then not only are you clearly unequipped to continue this conversation, but you show the same sort of obtuse "deny what you can't refute and then counterattack" style that Ted has been using for the eight years I've been debating him online.

Curiouser and curiouser.

If you aren't Ted, you're his slavish disciple. Why don't you try thinking on your own for a change instead of channeling Ted's brain (and old material)?

84 posted on 10/07/2002 2:44:00 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
By the way, creationists who post way out of date articles like this are just showing how entirely out of touch they are with current science.

I hope you don't think I'm a creationist. I sometimes post articles I disagree with--as is the case in this instance. Why would I do that? To learn from the discussion, and to help others do the same.

Biology and evolution are not my specialty or expertise, and when I see an article or argument that I can't easily refute myself, I may very well post it in order to see whether someone else can do so. Although I am an atheist, and do not believe in creation theory, I do have an open mind, and am not afraid of arguments or evidence that appears to challenge what I believe.

Actually, I'm a pan-critical rationalist, and so don't "believe" anything in the absolute sense of "unshakable faith without proof." All my beliefs are subject to challenge and revision--at least in principle.

85 posted on 10/07/2002 2:45:23 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
What are you babbling about?

Your admission that you can't keep up your end of a discussion is duly noted.

You see, being able to understand simple English prose (not necessarily agreeing with it, but at least being able to grasp what the other person is saying) is sort of a prerequisite to intelligent discussion.

86 posted on 10/07/2002 2:45:30 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Interesting article from way back


FEBS Lett 1994 Mar 28;342(1):7-11

Two hypotheses--one answer. Sequence comparison does not support an evolutionary
link between halobacterial retinal proteins including bacteriorhodopsin and
eukaryotic G-protein-coupled receptors.

Soppa J.

Max-Planck-Institut fur Biochemie, Martinsried, Germany.

The structure of bacteriorhodopsin (BR) of Halobacterium halobium is known.
Despite the lack of sequence similarities it is often taken as a model for
eukaryotic G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Recently two hypotheses were
used to support the homology of BR and GPCRs, namely evolution by exon shuffling
and evolution by gene duplication. BR is a member of a family of halobacterial
retinal proteins. The sequences of eight members of this family were used to
test the two hypotheses. Based on sequence comparison, no indication for an
evolutionary linkage between the two protein families could be found.
87 posted on 10/07/2002 2:46:19 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Wow, that sounds just like something Ted would say...

It appears as if you are the disciple of Ted.

I deny, because it is not true and you haven't provided any evidence, only your blather.

88 posted on 10/07/2002 2:46:58 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: widowithfoursons
Then why isn't it called the "fact" of evolution?

Clearly, you didn't bother reading the links I provided you, since one of them specifically addresses your question.

Try again.

Meanwhile, I will ponder the adage about leading a horse to water.

89 posted on 10/07/2002 2:47:47 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
It appears as if you are the disciple of Ted.

Clearly, you need glasses.

Or at least a dictionary.

90 posted on 10/07/2002 2:49:05 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Meanwhile, I will ponder the adage about leading a horse to water.

I'm sure you'll be gone for a while, as it certainly confuses you.

91 posted on 10/07/2002 2:49:30 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Clearly, you need glasses.

Or at least a dictionary.

How witty!

You obviously had your posterior handed to you continually for eight years. Your luck isn't changing.

92 posted on 10/07/2002 2:51:39 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Did read the info you provided. Am not an idiot, and still am not convinced. This horse loves to drink water.
93 posted on 10/07/2002 2:54:39 PM PDT by widowithfoursons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Dan, you sure have thrown yourself into the thick of it. You're by no means alone, but most of us have grown weary of fruitlessly tangling with certain posters. But please continue. Until you too grow weary, and come to the conclusion that some folks just aren't very good at abstract thinking. These threads are an excellent exercise in revealing that.
94 posted on 10/07/2002 2:54:56 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Your babbling concerns the fact that you were address some sort of inner monologue in your head and nothing stated by me.

You were babbling.

Happens a lot on these threads by religious whackos like you.

Science is science. Biology is a scientific discipline.

What is talked about here is not. It is religious argument.

Those partaking often babble on thinking they are spotting heretics and infidels, eg your babbling inner monologue with delusions of your mind you project on what I wrote.

Hardly ever does one get a straight answer or discussion from people who are zealous for evolution. It is strange and should be the opposite.

95 posted on 10/07/2002 2:58:26 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

96 posted on 10/07/2002 2:58:55 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific disipline, whether you choose to accept it or not.

OK.

You cannot even keep this straight.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Many disciplines address it and contribute to it -- eg just about all fields of biology, anthropology, geology etc...

97 posted on 10/07/2002 3:01:03 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

98 posted on 10/07/2002 3:03:42 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
So, am I supposed to look up bateriorhodopsin or bacteriorhodospin? Dolt!

Maybe I don't feel like playing games today.
99 posted on 10/07/2002 3:04:52 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

100 posted on 10/07/2002 3:06:03 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-189 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson