Where is Dawkins wrong?-trimmed our creationist BS

[gregw74]

Rather comical is Dawkins response to the question, asking to provide "....one single example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that increases the information in the genome" The video clip: http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/video/frogPrince.aspx

 

As you will notice, he doesn't provide one and instead summarizes his perspective on evolution.

 

Per the Orginal AIG Article:

"Dawkins brings up yet again the false claim that 'evolution by natural selection is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity.' "

[Mokele]

As you will notice, he doesn't provide one and instead summarizes his perspective on evolution.

 

No, I'm sure he did, because every sophomore biology major knows the answer. What *really* happened is that you edited the original video and swapped his answer with another. In fact, it's transparently obvious you did so.

 

Of course, this is the typical sort of intellectual dishonesty one gets from creationists.

 

If you don't have anything to post that's true, don't post at all.

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

Or, more frequently, unequal crossing-over.

[gregw74]

Maybe Dawkins only made it through the freshmen level?? This might explain everything! LOL. Just kiddin.

 

What *really* happened is that you edited the original video and swapped his answer with another. In fact, it's transparently obvious you did so.

 

Now that would be funny, were it true. More importantly though, it would be dishonest but that's immoral and morality has no place in science (but that's another topic altogether). I must say, I like how I was given the benefit of the doubt by assuming I'm dishonest instead of a credible person. Unfrotunately no one can take credit for such a prank since this is the original clip. On second thought, I take that back, we can give credit to Dawkins.

 

It's alight that he didn't have an answer. Not sure who does if Dawkins doesn't. The truth of the matter is that he didn't have an example to illustrate one of the fundemental theories behind evolution. This should speak volumes since such exmples should be plentiful given Dawkins calibur and vast knowledge of the subject.

[Mokele]

I must say, I like how I was given the benefit of the doubt by assuming I'm dishonest instead of a credible person.

 

You support ID. No intellectually honest person can, as they would be forced by the incredible weight of data to acknowledge evolution. Therefore, you are intellectualy dishonest. QED. Really, at least make it *hard* to prove....

 

Unfrotunately no one can take credit for such a prank since this is the original clip.

 

Bullshit. You can *clearly* see the cuts between scenes. Either they turned the camera off at choice moments (intellectual dishonesty and falsely representing what actually happened) or they were edited afterwards into that atrocity (also intellectual dishonesty and falsely representing what actually happened).

 

Unless you are so completely stupid (and probably blind) that you cannot see the *obvious* cuts between clips, you are stuck between two options, both showing the dishonesty of you and your ilk.

 

Your feeble attempt at deception failed. Suck it up and deal with it.

 

The truth of the matter is that he didn't have an example to illustrate one of the fundemental theories behind evolution. This should speak volumes since such exmples should be plentiful given Dawkins calibur and vast knowledge of the subject.

 

No, the truth of the matter is you or your ilk edited the clip to defame him. Frankly, I'm amazed he's not suing for slander. Open *any* sophomore-level genetics textbook, and read "unequal crossing over".

 

Oh, wait, you don't read books. All that evidence might disrupt your pretty little delusions.

 

More importantly though, it would be dishonest but that's immoral and morality has no place in science (but that's another topic altogether).

 

Blatantly false. Scientific *results* are not supposed to be influenced by the moral implications a result, but the *process* of science adheres very strongly to intellectual honesty and rigor, honestly representing the data as they see it regardless of what that means. (Which is more than I can say for you and your slanderous, delusional ilk.)

 

Mokele

[PhDP]

It's alight that he didn't have an answer. Not sure who does if Dawkins doesn't.

 

I do know the answer, and Mokele too. And Dawkins isn't our god, certainly not mine.

 

I must say, I like how I was given the benefit of the doubt by assuming I'm dishonest instead of a credible person.

 

Personally, I won't say you are dishonest, but you certainly quote people who are often dishonest in their argument. They are creationists before even knowing what evolutionary biology is.

[gregw74]

Phil... I greatly appreciate your respect that I'm not being dishonest with what I posted. I do respect the topic enough not to throw false ideas on the table. It's a waste of time. Though, if ID is such a bad idea and waste of time talking about (as many suggest), why are scientists more and more begining to have doubts about Darwinism.

 

I will say that I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, but macro-evolution seems like a hard bargin based on the very discoveries found through science. There just isn't conclusive evidence. I never even had a problem with accepting evolution in the past, until I actually started devling into the topic. As a theist, evolution or creation are fair game for me. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I say this as to clarify that this is not a matter of faith for me. More and more, it seems like it takes a greater leap of faith to assume life resulted by chance, then by a designer.

[LucidDreamer]

I will say that I don't have a problem with micro-evolution' date=' but macro-evolution seems like a hard bargin based on the very discoveries found through science. There just isn't conclusive evidence. I never even had a problem with accepting evolution in the past, until I actually started devling into the topic. As a theist, evolution or creation are fair game for me. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I say this as to clarify that this is not a matter of faith for me. More and more, it seems like it takes a greater leap of faith to assume life resulted by chance, then by a designer.[/quote']

The question isn't whether a designer was involved or not; the question is what mechanism resulted in the diversity of life we see today. Whether or not God was involved is a non-issue with evolution. Evolution does not deal with the formation of life from non-life and it does not make and statements about the possible contribution of a deity. The theory of evolution merely deals with the fact that all life has common ancestry and has evolved into the myriad of life that we see today.

 

Though, if ID is such a bad idea and waste of time talking about (as many suggest), why are scientists more and more begining to have doubts about Darwinism.

They aren't. That is merely propaganda spread by creationists. The amount of scientists that believe in evolution is as strong as ever.

I will say that I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, but macro-evolution seems like a hard bargain based on the very discoveries found through science. There just isn't conclusive evidence. I never even had a problem with accepting evolution in the past, until I actually started delving into the topic.

You are delving into the topic by reading creationist's literature. I know this because you use the term Darwinism, which scientists never use. If you are really interested in finding the truth then spend some time delving into this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/

[PhDP]

Though, if ID is such a bad idea and waste of time talking about (as many suggest), why are scientists more and more begining to have doubts about Darwinism.

 

Like Lucid said, "they aren't". Intelligent Design isn't endorse by serious institutions like the National Academy of Science, and it's not by most biologists. It's certainly not gaining ground and is mosly supported by non-biologists. If creationists are always losing against evolutionists in court, it's certainly not because of a lack of supports from the population, it's because creationism, and intelligent design, isn't science, it's religion.

 

I will say that I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, but macro-evolution seems like a hard bargin based on the very discoveries found through science. There just isn't conclusive evidence. I never even had a problem with accepting evolution in the past, until I actually started devling into the topic. As a theist, evolution or creation are fair game for me. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I say this as to clarify that this is not a matter of faith for me. More and more, it seems like it takes a greater leap of faith to assume life resulted by chance, then by a designer.

 

Then read what both sides have to say. Don't choose creationism before reading what evolutionist have to say. I've heard "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution" (by Douglas J. Futuyma), is a pretty good defence of evolutionary biology.

 

And if you have a specific question about evolution, there's an army of evolutionists here to answer

[gregw74]

Evolution does not deal with the formation of life from non-life

So the origin of life remains a mystery in the evolutionist's eyes? Evolution suggests and theorizes only the transitions from one species to another? Doesn't evolution deal with the origins of life at it's most basic chemical level up through today (from one species to the next)? I suppose evolutionists delve into different levels of evolution and not always at the chemical level? I don't know.

[gregw74]

The argument against polyploidy producing new information or evolutionary mutations is elaborated in the following articles, with scientific data and not assumptions:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

[atinymonkey]

Well, that's the rub really. The argument, as in it's not propagated or supported. It's not even seriously credible. Answers in Genesis serve but one purpose, to sooth the Creationists when they are presented with the harsh realities of life outside the cosseted church. A return to the Dark Age will not be forthcoming, the draconian attitudes of the backward creationists is an embarrassment to Christians and the accepted Christian Churches.

 

Have a word with yourself, sort your head out. O_o

[gregw74]

What about the growing number of professors at the doctorate level who are skeptical of evolution's claims and it's accounting for the complexity of life. There are biochemists and the like who are certainly skeptical of it. One of which is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter was actually sent to the Kansas State School Board by one it's members endorsing and enouraging the critique of evolution and it's cliams. Essentially, It's a theory and there are scientists who clearly have doubts about it.

[Mokele]

Phil... I greatly appreciate your respect that I'm not being dishonest with what I posted. I do respect the topic enough not to throw false ideas on the table. It's a waste of time.

 

At the very least, you relayed false (and worse, deliberately falsified) information by posting that video clip.

 

Though, if ID is such a bad idea and waste of time talking about (as many suggest), why are scientists more and more begining to have doubts about Darwinism.

 

As others have said, this is flat-out untrue. First, nobody uses "darwinism" anymore, in part because evolution has been reformulated multiple times to take into account the discoveries of Mendel and then the advent of modern genetics. Second, the support for evolution among biologists is 100%, with the only dissenting voices being from a few crackpots like Behe who clearly have never even taken an undergrad course in it.

 

In fact, there was a survey done recently on ID in science. They found a total of *zero* publications in *all* the major journals citing ID. Then, to counter the predictible responses of 'you're just refusing to print it', they asked all the editors about submissions, and guess what? Not a single ID paper has ever been *submitted*. IDers aren't even *trying* to put forth their supposedly scientific idea in the proper venues, because they *know* it'll only result in humiliation for them.

 

I will say that I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, but macro-evolution seems like a hard bargin based on the very discoveries found through science. There just isn't conclusive evidence.

 

First, there is conclusive evidence, and plenty of it. The fossil record, for one. Then, we've observed speciation and morphological changes within nature, so we've *watched* macro-evolution happen.

 

Second, there's the small problem that you *cannot* separate the two. The micro- and macro- distinctions are mere terminology so scientists can more easily talk about what aspects of evolution they study, and do *not* reflect a genuine divide. Micro-evolution's veracity *necessitates* macro-evolution, and vice versa. If one is true, both are, no if's, and's or but's.

 

So the origin of life remains a mystery in the evolutionist's eyes? Evolution suggests and theorizes only the transitions from one species to another? Doesn't evolution deal with the origins of life at it's most basic chemical level up through today (from one species to the next)? I suppose evolutionists delve into different levels of evolution and not always at the chemical level?

 

Pretty much. Evolution basically deals with how populations change over time (or don't, which can be interesting too). Where the animals came from is pretty much irrelevant. Whether they arose from primordial soup, or God, or alien colonists doesn't matter. All that matters is there is heritable variation in reproductive sucess.

 

Plus, well, abiogenesis is basically organic chemistry, and most biologist have to take that class and hated it (it's a big "weeder course"). I didn't find it that bad, but I could never really get enthused about it (I'm more an organism-level guy). Even many of the cellular, genetic and biochem people tend to lose interest when there's not a straightforward application to living things. There's some exceptions, of course, but abiogenesis is mostly chemistry, and biology is merely the end result, and personally puts me to sleep. And the RNA catalase can auto-zzzzzzz.........

 

The two concepts are logically distinct, though. Abio doesn't require evolution, nor vice versa. Even if you bought the idea of God creating everything 10,000 years ago, evolution would *still* be true, as living things have been varying and having varying reproductive sucess since then.

 

As my evolution prof once said, part of Darwin's genius was not just recognizing that a few simple factors (heritable variation, variable reproductive output, more kids than could survive) would result in natural selection, which in turn would produce evolution, but that in just about all natural setting, these factors are present and that evolution is almost impossible to avoid.

 

Mokele

[gregw74]

Second, the support for evolution among biologists is 100%, with the only dissenting voices being from a few crackpots like Behe who clearly have never even taken an undergrad course in it.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to propose this, at least 400 scientist's have gone on the record as expressing doubts about Darwin's theory.

 

400 who are skeptical

Original article

 

There are over 400 here who (many at the doctorate level) were willing and had the opprotunity to go on the record. This is beyond a few. This number has only been on the increase.

 

On a side note: One poll found "...that 60 percent of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief...". But they're only doctors and not biologists. Right? ...and so they lack the necessary credentials?

Original article

 

Also... here is the letter which was sent "... to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University."

[atinymonkey]

I wouldn't be so quick to propose this' date=' at least 400 scientist's have gone on the record as expressing doubts about Darwin's theory.

[/quote']

What's that got to do with anything? Darwin's many theories on evolution were outdated even before he died. We don't still hold up Newton as the Lord High Ruler of Physics, and we don't give a flying monkey about Darwin's theories.

 

Pay attention to what's being said, don't stray off in tangents. Focus, man, for Gods sake focus

[Bill Nye Guy]

Almost anyone who wants to become a biologist and works hard enough at it can become one. That means those people who are born creationists can also become biologists. It's not supprising that a few would move away, yet almost all of the scientists who actually enter the field with a open mind tend to stay evolutionists.

 

Also i have to agree that evolution has continued to rise. I read a Time magazine that stated that almost all of the states are now teaching evolution ( though they may not want to ). Only a couple of states don't teach evolution now which is a huge change from 10 or so years ago when only 3/4 of the states tought evolution. The teaching of ID in classrooms however will probably NOT make much of a difference because those who actually understand the field will continue to support evolution and will probably have better ideas which they will have gained from argueing the point with creationists.

 

This is why i think there should be a few people who move away from evolutionary biology. It will help those who do believe in evolution to be able to improve and make better ideas about the field. It will probably make evolution stronger then ever.

 

Evolution in general has increased ( though conservative creationists would say other wise, but i repeat they LIE!!!! ) many scientists, that are not only biologists, believe in evolution. Also through genetics and other scienes evolution has continued to improve on its ideas. I know a couple of really ultra conservative kids who are SOOOOOOO extreme right, yet believe microevolution is correct and has to happen. They have only changed their view quite recentally ( with some help from yours sincerely ). Evolution has gotten stronger with the help of new sciene discoveries and will only continue to rise.

[bascule]

The argument against polyploidy producing new information or evolutionary mutations is elaborated in the following articles' date=' with scientific data and not assumptions:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp

 

Conjecture: "If [polyploid DNA] had been an important factor in the ‘evolution’ of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the Tree of Life. The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement."

 

Blindingly obvious response: The majority of mutations are either deleterious or provide neither benefit nor harm to the resulting offspring. Comparatively, very few are beneficial. More DNA provides more opportunity for deleterious mutations. Polyploidy itself is typically deleterious, disasterously so in mammals.

 

This is why in science there's this thing called "peer review" that, for some reason, ID people seem to despise. Must be because the evil evolution advocates are all part of a giant conspiracy to defend their inherently flawed idea, eh?

[Mokele]

I wouldn't be so quick to propose this, at least 400 scientist's have gone on the record as expressing doubts about Darwin's theory.

 

I have a list of 585 biologists who think that ID and creationism are bullshit. The catch? The list has self-handicapped by only allowing biologists named Steve to sign on. The point is that, while 400 sounds like a lot, it's actually only a *tiny* fraction of the total, since it's easily out-weighed by a list of Steves.

 

Secondly, how many are biologists? Of those, how many aren't just biochemists (who, in my experience, often have a poor understanding of evolution, with Behe being a prime example)?

 

Project Steve

 

As for the doctors and the chemist you mention, none have a sufficient understanding or education in evolution. In my undergrad evolution class, there were almost no pre-med people, because they were all taking things like medical botany and microbiology instead. So far as I know, evolution is not required for pre-meds, and definitely not for chemists, so simply put, unless they educated themselves independently, they have very little idea what they're talking about.

 

Why don't you list how many *biologists* and *paleontologists* are IDers, as a percentage of the whole? Because it would be embarassing to see your side holds less than 0.00001% of the people who actually know about the subject in depth and are familiar with the evidence?

 

Also, if it's so respectable, why are all these people to cowardly to even submit a paper to a real journal about it? Oh, that's right, because they don't have any arguements that don't fall apart upon even cursory examination, and have absolutely zero evidence.

 

Mokele

[Bill Nye Guy]

in some cases i have to agree with you Mokele about pre-med and chemists not knowing enough about evolution. I went to a med. preparation session in Lead America where about 300-500 students were present. Out of that i could only find about 10 who were educated enough in evolution. Most doctors ( and there was a survey some where that supported this) are very religious people, which is not at all supprising from what they see in their field. Everyone in that session ( except me and the 10 mentioned) where extremely christian having come from christian prep schools.

 

But then again there are some doctors and chemists who have known to believe in evolution. Most of my family are doctors but we all believe in evoution.

 

Scientists who study Astronomy and Physics are also strong believers in evolution. It really just matters how much understanding they have in biology and wheather or not they were born creationists.

[gregw74]

LOL...

 

1.) the point of providing all the names of the 400 was to show you that there clearly are scientists who are skeptical of evolution, along with the names you will find their associated field of study. Just open the document and take a look, you will find plenty in the field of biology. My point wasn't to illustrate a particular awe-inspiring number, but to counter your assumption that...

 

the support for evolution among biologists is 100%,

 

-------------------

2.)

Also, if it's so respectable, why are all these people to cowardly to even submit a paper to a real journal about it? Oh, that's right, because they don't have any arguements that don't fall apart upon even cursory examination, and have absolutely zero evidence.

 

Scientist's have submitted papers relevant to the ID theory and have had them published. Two in the past nine months, so don't say that they haven't submitted any. This was just after a quick search.

The article which discusses the most recent submisssion

 

-------------------

3.)

As for the doctors and the chemist you mention, none have a sufficient understanding or education in evolution.

 

If a 60% of doctors are skeptical (or "ill-educated", if you'd rather) , including the 400 scientists? How much education is it going to take for a grade school teacher to fully understand the concept and relay the information to their students?? ...furthermore, having any hope that the students will understand it?

[The Spith]

I recommend you all read 'The Devils Chaplain'.

 

It's a collection of essays which were the first book of his work I read. Some of it is on evolution, but most of it is on belief and it answers a lot of the questions people have been asking on this thread.

 

It also mentions the Australian interview that someone posted. From what I can remember from the book it would seem like that clip is false as Mokele said.

 

Dawkins wrote that these Australians were a two man film crew who asked him to film him at work (I think they were also staying at his home for a while as well) and then asked him from an interview. Their first question was the one in that clip and Dawkins said it was only then he realised they were creationists 'due to the way the question was phrased' and he stopped the interview (a large part of the rest of the book talks about why he will not debate with creationists). He then goes on to answer the question fully in an essay.

[Mokele]

1.) the point of providing all the names of the 400 was to show you that there clearly are scientists who are skeptical of evolution, along with the names you will find their associated field of study. Just open the document and take a look, you will find plenty in the field of biology. My point wasn't to illustrate a particular awe-inspiring number, but to counter your assumption that...

 

Quote:

the support for evolution among biologists is 100%,

 

Actually, I'm technically right. The moment someone lets ideology and belief rule over data and logic, they are no longer a scientist. Therefore there are *no* creationist scientists, as being a creationist necessitates a mindset that is utterly contradictory to being truly a scientist.

 

However, even if we leave that aside, all you've given are a list of 400 crackpots who can't see evidence that's staring them in face. They are a *tiny* fraction of scientists.

 

Furthermore, it's the evidence that matters, not the people. And evidence has spoken clearly and decisively. You just don't want to listen.

 

Scientist's have submitted papers relevant to the ID theory and have had them published. Two in the past nine months, so don't say that they haven't submitted any. This was just after a quick search.

The article which discusses the most recent submisssion

 

Well, first, it's Wells, who is a third-rate hack of a biologist, and wouldn't understand real biology if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

 

Second, the "Journal" is a tiny Italian journal that seems to have been mostly defunct for decades. I've certainly never seen anything cited from it.

 

I find it very telling that a *US* biologist could not get published anywhere except a third-rate, mostly defunct Italian journal when it involves ID. Can anyone read italian? I'll bet they don't have peer-review, and thus my statement stands. Hell, I'll bet they'll take anything anyone sends them, so long as they can translate it.

 

That's the logical equivalent of citing someone's HS essays as "publications". Show me a publication in a journal that is peer reviewed and, more importantly, actually has standards and readers. Scrawling on a napkin is not "publishing a paper".

 

If a 60% of doctors are skeptical (or "ill-educated", if you'd rather) , including the 400 scientists? How much education is it going to take for a grade school teacher to fully understand the concept and relay the information to their students?? ...furthermore, having any hope that the students will understand it?

 

It's like any subject; there are levels. To use my work for example:

Elementary school: Snakes have bones and muscles

High school: snakes have skull bones, vertebrae, ribs and various muscles.

College: The vast majority of muscle c/s area in snakes is composed of three epaxial muscle groups.

Post-grad specialization in the field: (insert incredibly complicated slew of information about the 20-odd muscle groups in any given snake).

 

However, it's more a problem of the individual. Many creationist or ID arguements seem convincing and legit when presented, but upon digging into the scientific side, you find they are invariably full of shit, and that science has long since answered their objection. Some people will go and dig into the science to see if the ID arguement stands, others won't, and it's mostly a case of scientific mindset.

 

Doctors, frankly, have a very poor scientific mindset, and only limited in-depth knowledge of biology as a whole. Mostly they simply memorize shit, diagnose, and repeat. Innovation is rare and typically trial-and-error. As such, they read some ID arguement, it fits into their worldview, and they accept it, without ever trying to see if it's really right. 7 years of just rote memorization from textbooks seems to have its downside.

 

If you'll search this forum's archives, you'll notice that we have answered every single point any creationist has raised. Often, we have pulled enough data that their arguement isn't just countered, but demolished.

 

So, given that *EVERY* arguement ID or creationism have ever put forth has been satisfactorially answered by science, why shouldn't we just dismiss you as another crackpot?

 

The plain fact of the matter is that evolution happens. The plain fact is that macroevolution happens (we've directly observed it). The plain fact is that there is so much evidence, you would have to be either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid to somehow think ID is supportable. Face facts, kid.

 

Are there disputes in evolution, yes. But these are about mechanisms of speciation, the effect of developmental constraints, and such. I'm actually in the middle of reading a very interesting paper on the effect of simple function mechanics in allowing for diversification of taxa. This is about how it happens, not if it happens. No sensible person can look at the evidence and still claim evolution does not happen.

 

The fact that only a tiny, lunatic fringe of the people who have the best grasp of the evidence deny it should tell you something. Here's another statistic: the percantage who believe in creationism or ID goes *down* with increasing educational levels (and this isn't even restricted to science majors). The more someone knows, the less likely they are to believe your ID bullshit. Think hard about that before posting again.

 

Mokele

[gregw74]

There is also the piece that was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

 

More...

 

Based on the following I hardly see Wells as a crack-pot, or Behe (why the name calling anyway? Now, who's the kid again?):

 

"Dr. Jonathan Wells earned two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, taught biology at California State University in Hayward, and worked as the supervisor of a medical laboratory. He has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is the author of “Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong” (Regnery Publishing, 2000). "

 

I suppose it's more entertaining for you and the others to just call them "crack-pots"? Seems rather juvenile. So I suppose if all else fails, make personal attacks to better qualify your credentials and belittle those you don't agree with. I fail to see the effectiveness in that. I hope your family members and friends don't disagree with very often, for their own sake.

[zyncod]

There are so many problems with that paper. To begin, why was an ID article printed in a (small, almost irrelevant) journal largely devoted to publishing monographs (which nobody reads)? It, had it really presented any unique/valid points, considering the impact of such a paper, should have been published in Nature or PNAS or at least MPE. Why does the journal itself have a link in essence disavowing the paper? (for those of you not acquainted with scientific journals, it's the equivalent of the NY Times putting a permanent link on its website disavowing one specific article)

 

My lab is publishing a paper on what the processing determnants are of an enzyme cut site in a specific chloroplast mRNA in algae (although it is publishing it through the traditional peer-reviewed mechanism and in a relevant journal). Should that be taught to high school students? After all, the apparent prerequisite for inclusion in a high school curriculum according to IDists is just a handful of papers. So of course we must also include matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization - time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF), which is mentioned in nearly 3000 papers according to Pubmed (BTW- "intelligent design" is mentioned in 22 Pubmed papers - none of which are supportive of or relevant to ID). And many hundreds of thousands of other topics - so our high school students will be 4000 years old when they graduate.