While studying the latest information from the fastest growing area of science that I know of (systems biology) I saw the sentence "Reading this page may help explain why such a large proportion of the genome of animals is devoted to genes involved in cell signaling." then started laughing to myself. Then after finding the now long and still growing list of cell signaling pathways that are now at BioCarta there was no way I could resist posting the link here, for anyone who wants to learn some modern biology:

http://www.biocarta.com/genes/CellSignaling.asp

If you start now, then in a number of years you might scratch the surface of it too.

I'd like to point out that all this research is being done by regular old scientists, which all of us here accept. However, it just doesn't have anything to do with Intelligent Design, and none of this research is being done by intelligent design "researchers". So what's your point?

Then you are OK with teaching that the usual mutation/selection genetic algorithms are now becoming antiquated and the predictive power of modern synthesis is proving to have limits?


You are now stereotyping. How do you even know that none of them have been infected with theory that has come from the Intelligence Design Lab and like me are now essentially ID'ers too?


My point is that in this more modern time "regular old scientists" now have much better things to do than play with genetic algorithms and talk about DNA mutation and selection having created everything. The growing realization that such a large proportion of the genome of animals is devoted to genes involved in cell signaling is further indication that the Theory of Intelligent Design that I know is indeed true. The one you know that requires religious arguments to support or falsify it is out of bounds of science to begin with, which makes it a very bad example to set by anyone claiming to be teaching how the scientific method works. You're teaching that religious arguments are allowed, as long as they are they are your religious arguments, when in fact for the scientific method to work the rules must equally apply to all sides, including yours.

Do you have any scientific evidence yet to indicate that what is stated in the theory I'm researching is in any way incoherent?

The more appropriate question is for you: How do YOU know that ANY of them have paid the slightest bit of DOCUMENTABLE attention to the "Intelligence Design Lab" (e.g. references, or even acknowledgments, in peer-reviewed literature) and like you "are now essentially ID'ers too?" You've been challenged on this before, and we're still waiting.......zzzzzz.

But Norm, how do you know they haven't! And what about that teacup in orbit around the sun - how do you know it's not there?

From Bertrand Russell:

I get enough feedback to know how well I’m doing in my scientific niche, in the science world. But that’s beside the point.

Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest. And like others who have tried, you have presented no scientific evidence to the contrary, just the usual insults that attempt to change the topic to teapots and other foolishness, instead of cell signaling systems and all else that is supposed to be under discussion. But you did remind me to not waste more time arguing against unscientific excuses for not playing by the rules of science (that here require discussing cell signaling systems and such) and get back to work on modeling molecular and cellular level intelligence.

If that fantasy was really true, you at least have used the proper word ("infected") to describe it.

I think you should follow Oh Henry's advice from a previous thread when he said....

The bold font and the link, my emphasis.

I have to thank you for that one Brian! The terminology is from here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVWazHTunSI

That's it--- dodge, weave, duck, change the subject, anything but honestly and squarely face the question of whether anyone besides youself regards your ID work seriously. Better to brush it off....again.... and hope nobody notices that you've yet to present a shred of evidence that anyone else uses your work or even gives a toot.

Good Observation Norm, because something has just occurred to me about Gary's apparent need to create so many threads. As you have pointed out, he will "dodge, weave, and duck", and when the questions get tough in one of his little [turd]threads[/turd],he opens up a new thread.

The Black Knight always triumphs! LOL



Link added in edit.

Gary, I have an idea for you. This will go well with another apparent need you have to change font size and color so often. So I think you might like it.

Go ahead and pick out for yourself a good dark shade of large brown font. Maybe something like this and use it to make all of your posts about your theory from now on.

That way it will be much easier for any new readers of the forum, to immediately recognize one big steaming pile of bits.

I now have an order to fill that makes it worthwhile for me to rush another self-published book into print that can be used for religious study groups and/or public school use. If you need evidence for that too then all I can say is I have better things to do than give a toot about you.

Gary writes:

More bobbing & weaving, more evasion. “…an order to fill…”, “…rush(!) another(!!) self-published book into print….” How many of those self-published (and un-reviewed) “books” are there now Gary? And how many are in public school use, or even religious study groups? Can you name one? But hey, we don’t need evidence of anything; your avoidance of it speaks loud and clear. It’s interesting that credibility for your ID work is something you apparently strive for but are consistently unable to provide. Instead you yell politics, lash out at your critics, and rail about unfairness in the rules and procedures of real science.

There have been two books so far, with the second titled "Science To Believe In" from the early 1990's describing the core concepts in the current theory (still doing fine holding up to all evidence). Now that I ran out of them I need to print more.

And the "rules and procedures of real science" work great for me. The problem has been the rules and procedures of (anti)religiously motivated political activists who don't really care about real-science, but have so-far done a good job of making it seem so. It's relatively easy to spot them in threads with a topic such as Cell Signaling Pathways, by their having to change the subject to something that dumps on their opponent without ever having to address any of the real science issues.

Although the feedback from all who are not (anti)religious political activists has been sheer awesomeness, I cannot give you names of others so you can harass them too.