Free Republic

Because "red-state" Americans like you are too lazy to get any exercise and spent too much time stuffing themselves full of Big Macs, Whoppers, and other junk food. Don't blame scientists for the fact that you eat too much and don't get enough exercise. Scientists at Scripps and Salk have been working hard to unravel the intracacies of diabetes. (But in the case of this disease, it's a "rear-guard" action -- an attempt to "clean up" after the lifestyle-mess that Americans have made for themselves).

People are living a lot longer, you dumb****! Because fewer people are dying of heart disease, infectious diseases (such as tuberculosis), etc... more folks are reaching the very old ages where cancer becomes more prevalent.

And *age-adjusted* cancer rates for most types of cancer have *fallen* since WWII. Age-adjusted death rates for breast, prostate and colon cancer have fallen sharply in the past ten years. (But I'm probably wasting my time here -- you don't appear smart enough to figure out what "age-adjusted" means).

The little exercise wasn't proposed to satisfy *my* needs, but yours. I suggested it as an easy way for folks here to find out, with a minimum of effort, what is going on in the scientific community with respect to evolution. I suggested that folks look at the Salk and Scripps web-sites because (1) these organizations are at the very cutting edge of biological/medical research, and (2) their web-sites are very easy to navigate and have excellent search facilities.

Salk and Scripps have performed a tremendous amount research that has benefitted every American; their research has led to improved therapy for diabetes and cancer, for example. I thought that it would be very desirable for folks here to see how much the theory of evolution has contributed to the good work these institutions have done. (And don't forget that the founder of the Salk Insitute won the Nobel prize for developing the polio vaccine).

Hmmmm... so you've got time to waste posting to a freeper forum, but you don't have a couple of minutes (and that's all it would take) to visit the web-sites of two world-class research organizations to find out what *real* scientists doing *real* work think of intelligent design.

Search results of either institution could merely be colored by the attitudes of the individuals who work there.

I know that spelling-flames are in bad form, but it looks like you mis-spelled "expertise".

Speaking of flying sparks.... here's an interesting little exercise that should spark some constructive debate regarding the challenge that ID may pose for evolution...

But first, a quick backgrounder: San Diego is a global biotech powerhouse thanks in large part to the Salk Institute (www.salk.edu) and the Scripps Research Institute (www.scripps.edu). Some of the world's most distinguished scientists (including several Nobel laureates) work there. Both institutions have produced "cutting-edge" research in biology/biochemistry/molecular-biology that has led to major advances in treatments for cancer, diabetes, etc.

Anyway, let's get back to that little exercise I was talking about. If folks open browser windows pointed at www.salk.edu and www.scripps.edu, they'll find that both web-sites have convenient "search" facilities. Using the search facilities, people here should try conducting separate searches on "evolution" and "intelligent design". (Include the quotation-marks around "intelligent design" so that the search focuses on the entire phrase rather than the indivdual, separate words.) Then they should compare the results of the "evolution" vs. "intelligent design" searches for both the Salk and Scripps web-sites. This will give people a pretty good idea how well "intelligent design" stacks up against "evolution" as valid science.