To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

Not agreed. Then I'm thinking of Sister Theresa, the Dalai Lama and other people who brought a lot of wisdom to this world!

If you are talking about Mother Theresa, she wasn't quite the Saint she was made out to be. She did cause the poor in her mission to suffer more than they needed to because she thought it bought them closer to Jesus.

I am sure though that people can bring lots of Wisdom the world without being religious.

Academics suggest Hitch called it right on Mother Teresa
The article they refer too, Mommie Dearest

The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.

Slightly sorry for being off topic, but disagree with originator of this sub-topic

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

I did. People who know nothing about science had it moved by Red X. They did so just to up-set me, it can be called entrapment. Then as you can see after my topic post---bait.

As long as its here people think they can only address the politics. That is wrongful thinking, it's a science paper. LOL, so people just don't know science here it would seem. LMAO! It would seem lots and lots of people don't know what is and is not science. ;-)

Considering several actual scientists have told you here again and again that its not science, it is quite apparent that you are the one that does not know what is and is not science.

---

Reality Internet Personality

FYI: Neo-darwinism and darwinism are not terms used by evolutionary biologists. We refer to it as evolutionary theory. The theory has evolved in many ways since Darwin first proposed it.
FYI: Proponents of ID have failed to provide experimental proof or data to support the ID hypothesis. All of their publications are based on re-interpretations of other peoples data. The paper which forms the basis for this thread is a classic example of this. Until ID "scientists" participate in science and actually carry out some experimental work and create data like we evolutionary biologists do, we can safely ignore them. In science, it is required that the person proposing a new hypothesis provides new data to back it up!

---

From The Artice:

The idea that the central dogma is incomplete is really not controversial these days, with so much research showing how epigenetic mechanisms are vital for biological function.
He goes on to identify crucial sources of ontogenetic information that exists outside the DNA. Specifically, information can be stored in biological membranes that is crucial for the development of an organism -- also called ontogeny:
So biological membranes are patterned in complex ways. Those patterns serve important functions in cells, tissues and embryos. The following sections summarize the roles of plasma membrane patterns in (a) providing targets and sources for intracellular transport and signaling, (b) regulating cell-cell interactions by means of a "sugar code," and (c) generating endogenous electric fields that provide three-dimensional coordinate systems for ontogeny.

Right at the End of Article, Intelligent Design is mentioned.

Sorry Charlie. No I.D. Here. Taint No GOD Messages.

GOod 'ole Molecular Biology and Embryology at work.

da Crunchin' Troll Wannabe

I have said it before and I'll say it again. You are one of the smarter ones here. I really don't give a damn if others believe it or not. Nor do I care if you are a believer or not. Facts are facts and you have great critical thinking skills. Just saying.... ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Wish I could say the same, but I can't. So I wont.

To apply false logic...

It is written by a leading Neo-Darwin supporter.
It is published by an Neo-Darwin organisation.
It is peer reviewed by Neo-Darwin supporters

I can only draw the logical conclusion it is Neo-Darwinism.

Therefore not Science.

And of course there is such a thing as Neo-Darwinism.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

+10 LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Nice to see you as well.

It would appear you know science. LMAO!

I shall address you later, thank you very much for taking the time. Very nice of you!

I happen to know both, science and politics. I'm damn good at both. I have been a student for many a year now. Ambassador Alan Keyes has helped me GREATLY in the art of politics! Not gonna tell ya who helped me with science, lots of people there to name... :-)

LOL, very nice to see you!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I still think ID and evolution go hand in hand and that they both exist. The evolution theory is of course more reliable but it doesn't rule out the theory of ID.

At this point I would like to offer a tad bit of wisdom myself to you.

Look up the differance between Neo-Darwinism and just plain Ol Darwinism.

And keep in mind neo-darwinism has no recordable proof at all, just theory, that one species has changed into another.

Keep a open mind... ...don't let the dark side cloud your judgement.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

He did, but as Intelligent Design has been ruled not to be science by the US government, then it was moved here by the mods.

It's not the 1st time and ID should know better. It is not the way to win friends and influence people.

Pseudoscience according to Wikipedia... It leans more towards religion then.

Oh, I see. Both the government and Wikipedia have peer reviewed Intelligent Design! LMMFAO! No wonder.... ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

I did. People who know nothing about science had it moved by Red X. They did so just to up-set me, it can be called entrapment. Then as you can see after my topic post---bait.

As long as its here people think they can only address the politics. That is wrongful thinking, it's a science paper. LOL, so people just don't know science here it would seem. LMAO! It would seem lots and lots of people don't know what is and is not science. ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

If the books aren't written by g-d they are just books. If one says their book is written by g-d that causes all types of problems.

Sure, then that person must have a mental illness, no doubt. Like that guy who wrote the Quoran and predicted the accelerated expansion of the Universe, was he crazy or what?

Anyway is the paper restating that ontogeny doesn't recapitulate phylogeny? If so there is nothing new here so move along.

Now we're talking evolution again. This is nothing new my friend, so why won't you move along? I believe the OP is searching for answers, not something we already know for years. And if the OP isn't searching for answers, I sure as hell am!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Very true but you can't say that Religion hasn't brought us wisdom at all! Without the Bible, Quoran, Bhagavad gita or other similar books a lot of people would already be lost in this world. Not everyone is a scientist or has an inquisitive nature.

If the books aren't written by g-d they are just books. If one says their book is written by g-d that causes all types of problems.

Anyway is the paper restating that ontogeny doesn't recapitulate phylogeny? If so there is nothing new here so move along.

---

To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

Not agreed. Then I'm thinking of Sister Theresa, the Dalai Lama and other people who brought a lot of wisdom to this world!

If you are talking about Mother Theresa, she wasn't quite the Saint she was made out to be. She did cause the poor in her mission to suffer more than they needed to because she thought it bought them closer to Jesus.

I am sure though that people can bring lots of Wisdom the world without being religious.

Very true but you can't say that Religion hasn't brought us wisdom at all! Without the Bible, Quoran, Bhagavad gita or other similar books a lot of people would already be lost in this world. Not everyone is a scientist or has an inquisitive nature. I do respect your opinion Es:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

Not agreed. Then I'm thinking of Sister Theresa, the Dalai Lama and other people who brought a lot of wisdom to this world!

If you are talking about Mother Theresa, she wasn't quite the Saint she was made out to be. She did cause the poor in her mission to suffer more than they needed to because she thought it bought them closer to Jesus.

I am sure though that people can bring lots of Wisdom the world without being religious.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Well...strictly following the topic... (ID! Hello :) How are you?)
...I think where the confusion is occurring, is within the narrow setting of parameters delineating ontogenetic embryogenesis as not inherently precluding mutations...

My understanding of the article is this...Whilst unarguably simultaneously implying demonstrative immutable characteristic traits in DNA (dictiD) ... which are not, incidentally, mutually exclusive or incompatible (whether confined in a petrie dish, eggshell, womb or fluids with measurable viscosity of mineral composite gunge – damp soil to the layman) chemically interactive relationships defined in particle particularities are, to put it simply, only part of a much bigger picture and not the only way it's done. Adenosine triphosphate endogeny is a case in point! As is dictiD epimorphogenetic electrolyte synthesis... not to be confused, of course, with galactic medium interface matrix parallels (gmimps) relating to the spatiotemporal arrangements between (and within) the aggregate of both permeable and impermeable membranes – but that should really have gone without saying.

If we take the example of the ingestion of marmite during pregnancy correlating to directly proportionate marmite predeliction in descendant offspring lineages... then is it any wonder that ribonucleic transcription and translation proves phenotypical ontogenetic information is not singularly confined to mutational DNA but to physical laws governing exposure within and to various chemical baths as well! In fact... freeing embryo development of evolutionary dogma has been conclusively proved by the biological evidence just within my family alone. :) Truly cutting edge stuff I think you'll agree... and I have been so inspired by it, that I am thinking of submitting this entire piece for peer review too... :) (suggestions as to where will be very welcome :) though I may have to shorten my conclusion :/)

So – back to the topic! Perhaps I should have been alarmed... but having thoroughly studied the article – I then reached a completely different conclusion to the writer of it! :/ Fortunately folks... this is not a problem, it's called “peer review a la it's on the internet” (see required method outlined below) and seems to be the one favoured by this site. Having read fifteen further articles linked there I have learned a totally new methodology of reasoning... lengthy, rambling scientific gobbledygook short-circuiting all but the most basic brain functions in the reader... followed by a giant leap devoid of all justification and reasoning to a two sentence revolutionary conclusion... which in my case was that if neo-creationists are relying on this article to prove their theory, then sadly, the theory must be false.

In fact, I was left quite disappointed by it ID – sorry... but I'm sure you have many more up your sleeve :)

“peer review a la it's on the internet” - the METHOD
Step one: Decide what you want the article to prove.
Step two: Press a nose (evolutionary equipped with an eye or two arranged on a similar vertical plane to it) against one interesting development in the unfolding scientific discoveries emanating from research into genetics, speciation and deviation, then grind it ever harder into the aspect of your choice whilst nodding vigorously.
Step three: (I definitely know I did this bit wrong :)) DO NOT under any circumstances try to decipher the gobbledygook – instead, breathe heavily to ensure all other pertinent codicils to it become shrouded in condensation (smeared or snot) thereby rendering them utterly invisible to you. (Focussing any eyes you possess on the end of what should now be a very flat nose will greatly assist during this step.)

So... still not convinced, but good to have you back :)

To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

Not agreed. Then I'm thinking of Sister Theresa, the Dalai Lama and other people who brought a lot of wisdom to this world!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I still think ID and evolution go hand in hand and that they both exist. The evolution theory is of course more reliable but it doesn't rule out the theory of ID.

Agreed.

I may be an Atheist. But I have an open mind. The existence of A God has not been disproved (probably never can). At this point, it is really a matter of opinion.

Then you are not an Atheist, you are an Agnostic.

To those who will say there can't be A God, because it is stupid, ridiculous, etc. Why do you care? The Belief hurts no one. Yes, Believer's have committed horrible acts. So what! Non-Believer's have committed horrible acts too. Therefore, Non-Belief should be shunned and ridiculed?

If the belief hurts no one then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately as a female I am far too aware of how religious belief hurts women in practically every country in the world. I don't like religion. I don't care what nonsense you carry about in your head, but when you use it to control, murder and mutilate people I get a little upperty about it. To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I.D. underlying theme is that God created everything and there is no evolution. Everything else is a smoke screen. This program covers the subject well
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

I get this:

We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions.

Never mind. Here is another example of what real scientists think about the subject.
Neil deGrasse Tyson Debunks Creation (Intelligent Design) (40 minutes).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

Certainly, Mr Kettle.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.