The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: Barcs

You guys are unhinged LOL!

I understand why because evolution without intelligent agency is pure nonsense. Of course you want to debate things that have nothing to do with anything I've said. That's because you can't debate anything I've said and apparently you Geneticist friend can't answer the questions for you.

I never debated against DNA self assembly. There's some very smart Scientist doing some interesting nanoengineering projects with DNA self assembly, but it has nothing to do with this debate. I never said that didn't occur. With intelligence involved, DNA self assembly could help us build macro scale objects through nanoengineering. DNA has some great properties including DNA sequences being encoded by intelligence and also making the machinery to decode this information. It's similar to what intelligence is doing with nanoengineering.

You then tried to debate speciation. Another topic that has nothing to do with this thread. I understand why you brought it up, because you can't answer simple questions about a TATA box. So while you wait for your geneticist friend to try and give you some answers, you want to talk about things that have nothing to do with anything I've said. This is an old diversion tactic. When you're losing the debate, change the subject.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Actually, I learn a lot exploring the literature. My field is primarily drug discovery - spectroscopy, isolation, characterization of novel compounds - cancer and Hep C. But I'm interested in all science - particularly methodology. Many of the articles which I've read and posted have contributed a great deal to my own knowledge bank. Never stop learning -

a reply to: neoholographic

I understand why you brought it up, because you can't answer simple questions about a TATA box.

You were provided with multiple responses to your "TATA" box questions. I don't think you know one box from another. That said, why don't you explain WHY the responses did not address your question? Take a response - any response - and let's see you analyze it to determine:

1. Why it's wrong
2. How it's wrong
3. How your interpretation and conclusions nullify the results
4. The process by which you came to your conclusions i.e. evidence, your research, your methods

You make a lot of insulting statements and criticisms but never explain why the responses to your "questions" are wrong.
So let's have it - in a concise, orderly, scientific manner -

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TzarChasm

Actually, I learn a lot exploring the literature. My field is primarily drug discovery - spectroscopy, isolation, characterization of novel compounds - cancer and Hep C. But I'm interested in all science - particularly methodology. Many of the articles which I've read and posted have contributed a great deal to my own knowledge bank. Never stop learning -

and what have you learned from this thread?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

I understand why you brought it up, because you can't answer simple questions about a TATA box.

You were provided with multiple responses to your "TATA" box questions. I don't think you know one box from another. That said, why don't you explain WHY the responses did not address your question? Take a response - any response - and let's see you analyze it to determine:

1. Why it's wrong
2. How it's wrong
3. How your interpretation and conclusions nullify the results
4. The process by which you came to your conclusions i.e. evidence, your research, your methods

You make a lot of insulting statements and criticisms but never explain why the responses to your "questions" are wrong.
So let's have it - in a concise, orderly, scientific manner -

you know as well as i do that you wont get a response of any real substance. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. are you insane?

a reply to: Phantom423

Nope, you guys have no answers and that's why Barca had to run to his Geneticist friend to try and get them. You're even worse. You don't understand anything you're talking about. You copy and paste things and you don't add any explanation or commentary and you don't even post links to the source material.

You don't even understand what's being said and you can't make a coherent argument about anything. You just copy and paste about DNA self assembly which INTELLIGENCE uses in things like nanoengineering. Bringing up DNA self assembly makes zero sense in the context of this debate and I suspect this is why you just copy and paste because you don't understand the context of the debate.

DNA self assembly actually supports what I'm saying. Listen to this video of Paul Rothemund talking about DNA self assembly.



In the video, he clearly shows how it's INTELLIGENCE that provides the code to build structures they want to get it to build. DNA self assembly builds structures that the sequences encoded with information and the machinery to decode this information tell it to.

This is why you just copy and paste. I don't think you understand the debate. So you can't say, DNA self assembly refutes your argument because it shows there's a magical non living organism that came out of the prebiotic goo that can encode DNA sequences with information and also make the machinery to decode that information.

It's no different than Barcs running to phone a friend or talking about speciation.

It really shows how weak your positions are when you can't answer simple questions about a TATA Box or a CAAT Box.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Nope, you guys have no answers and that's why Barca had to run to his Geneticist friend to try and get them. You're even worse. You don't understand anything you're talking about. You copy and paste things and you don't add any explanation or commentary and you don't even post links to the source material.

You don't even understand what's being said and you can't make a coherent argument about anything. You just copy and paste about DNA self assembly which INTELLIGENCE uses in things like nanoengineering. Bringing up DNA self assembly makes zero sense in the context of this debate and I suspect this is why you just copy and paste because you don't understand the context of the debate.

DNA self assembly actually supports what I'm saying. Listen to this video of Paul Rothemund talking about DNA self assembly.

In the video, he clearly shows how it's INTELLIGENCE that provides the code to build structures they want to get it to build. DNA self assembly builds structures that the sequences encoded with information and the machinery to decode this information tell it to.

This is why you just copy and paste. I don't think you understand the debate. So you can't say, DNA self assembly refutes your argument because it shows there's a magical non living organism that came out of the prebiotic goo that can encode DNA sequences with information and also make the machinery to decode that information.

It's no different than Barcs running to phone a friend or talking about speciation.

It really shows how weak your positions are when you can't answer simple questions about a TATA Box or a CAAT Box.

well, you are an anonymous user on a conspiracy forum. so i suppose we will all just have to live with the fact that someone on the other side of the world disagreed with us on the internet. however will we sleep tonight?

a reply to: neoholographic

And you still refuse to post your evidence - the citations, the massive amount of research that supports your position.
I think that says everything we need to know about you - you don't have the guts to stand up to the plate and demonstrate, clearly and concisely, why the evidence presented here by myself and others is wrong. Why? Because you can't

You posted another video of a guy standing in front of an audience giving a lecture. That's not research and that's not evidence. It's only a guy talking on TED. So too are all the other videos you have posted - only people stating their positions or ideas in front of an audience. It means nothing and confirms nothing.

You fool no one with your inflammatory responses. You're very transparent. At the end of the day, you're a lot of pomp and no circumstance.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The methods in several of the papers posted - it's outside my field and, as I said, I'm a bench scientist - I'm always interested in laboratory methodology.

a reply to: Phantom423

What??? You said:

And you still refuse to post your evidence - the citations, the massive amount of research that supports your position.

Of course I have and this is why the thread is 40 pages long. This is why you have Barc's running to his Geneticist friend to answer questions that he can't answer. This is why you were here a few pages back copying and pasting the same things and you looked silly then as you look silly now. Nobody copies and pastes without any explanations or commentary and without links to the source material.

I've posted a mountain of evidence that supports my position and sadly for you there's no answers. Maybe Barcs has finally got some answers but it's been several days, so his Geneticist friend must be stumped as well.

a reply to: neoholographic

You've dome nothing of the sort. To continue to insist you have makes you a disingenuous liar. You have posted videos of people giving their opinions. That's not evidence and you know that.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

What??? You said:

And you still refuse to post your evidence - the citations, the massive amount of research that supports your position.

Of course I have and this is why the thread is 40 pages long. This is why you have Barc's running to his Geneticist friend to answer questions that he can't answer. This is why you were here a few pages back copying and pasting the same things and you looked silly then as you look silly now.


I've posted a mountain of evidence that supports my position and sadly for you there's no answers. Maybe Barcs has finally got some answers but it's been several days, so his Geneticist friend must be stumped as well.

Nobody copies and pastes without any explanations or commentary and without links to the source material.

Show me the post where I did this.

Below are examples of what citations look like - take a hint. And just for future reference, learn how to do it properly:
www.scientificstyleandformat.org...

Schuler-Faccini, L. et al. Possible association between Zika virus infection and microcephaly – Brazil, 2015. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 65, 59–62 (2016)

Cao-Lormeau, V. M. et al. Guillain–Barre syndrome outbreak associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia: a case-control study. Lancet 387, 1531–1539 (2016)

Kostyuchenko, V. A., Chew, P. L., Ng, T. S. & Lok, S. M. Near-atomic resolution cryo-electron microscopic structure of dengue serotype 4 virus. J. Virol. 88, 477–482 (2014)

Mansuy, J. M. et al. Zika virus: high infectious viral load in semen, a new sexually transmitted pathogen? Lancet Infect. Dis. 16, 405 (2016)

Barzon, L. et al. Isolation of infectious Zika virus from saliva and prolonged viral RNA shedding in a traveller returning from the Dominican Republic to Italy, January 2016. Euro Surveill. 21, 1 (2016)

Gourinat, A. C., O’Connor, O., Calvez, E., Goarant, C. & Dupont-Rouzeyrol, M. Detection of Zika virus in urine. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 21, 84–86 (2015)

Cauchemez, S. et al. Association between Zika virus and microcephaly in French Polynesia, 2013–15: a retrospective study. Lancet dx.doi.org...(16)00651-6 (2016)

Baronti, C. et al. Complete coding sequence of Zika virus from a French polynesia outbreak in 2013. Genome Announc. 2, e00500-14 (2014)

Fibriansah, G. et al. Structural changes in dengue virus when exposed to a temperature of 37 degrees C. J. Virol. 87, 7585–7592 (2013)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Zhang, X. et al. Dengue structure differs at the temperatures of its human and mosquito hosts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6795–6799 (2013)
CASPubMedArticle

Fibriansah, G. et al. DENGUE VIRUS. Cryo-EM structure of an antibody that neutralizes dengue virus type 2 by locking E protein dimers. Science 349, 88–91 (2015)
CASPubMedArticle

Kostyuchenko, V. A., Zhang, Q., Tan, J. L., Ng, T. S. & Lok, S. M. Immature and mature dengue serotype 1 virus structures provide insight into the maturation process. J. Virol. 87, 7700–7707 (2013)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Kuhn, R. J. et al. Structure of dengue virus: implications for flavivirus organization, maturation, and fusion. Cell 108, 717–725 (2002)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Zhang, X. et al. Cryo-EM structure of the mature dengue virus at 3.5-Å resolution. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 105–110 (2013)
CASArticle

Mukhopadhyay, S., Kim, B. S., Chipman, P. R., Rossmann, M. G. & Kuhn, R. J. Structure of West Nile virus. Science 302, 248 (2003)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Sirohi, D. et al. The 3.8 Å resolution cryo-EM structure of Zika virus. Science dx.doi.org... (2016)

Rey, F. A., Heinz, F. X., Mandl, C., Kunz, C. & Harrison, S. C. The envelope glycoprotein from tick-borne encephalitis virus at 2 Å resolution. Nature 375, 291–298 (1995)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Bressanelli, S. et al. Structure of a flavivirus envelope glycoprotein in its low-pH-induced membrane fusion conformation. EMBO J. 23, 728–738 (2004)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Nybakken, G. E., Nelson, C. A., Chen, B. R., Diamond, M. S. & Fremont, D. H. Crystal structure of the West Nile virus envelope glycoprotein. J. Virol. 80, 11467–11474 (2006)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Luca, V. C., AbiMansour, J., Nelson, C. A. & Fremont, D. H. Crystal structure of the Japanese encephalitis virus envelope protein. J. Virol. 86, 2337–2346 (2012)

Beasley, D. W. et al. Envelope protein glycosylation status influences mouse neuroinvasion phenotype of genetic lineage 1 West Nile virus strains. J. Virol. 79, 8339–8347 (2005)
CASPubMedArticle

Pokidysheva, E. et al. Cryo-EM reconstruction of dengue virus in complex with the carbohydrate recognition domain of DC-SIGN. Cell 124, 485–493 (2006)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Hamel, R. et al. Biology of Zika virus infection in human skin cells. J. Virol. 89, 8880–8896 (2015)
PubMedArticle

Meertens, L. et al. The TIM and TAM families of phosphatidylserine receptors mediate dengue virus entry. Cell Host Microbe 12, 544–557 (2012)
CASISIPubMedArticle

McCarthy, M. US health officials investigate sexually transmitted Zika virus infections. Br. Med. J. 352, i1180 (2016)

Li, X. et al. Electron counting and beam-induced motion correction enable near-atomic-resolution single-particle cryo-EM. Nature Methods 10, 584–590 (2013)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Liu, X., Jiang, W., Jakana, J. & Chiu, W. Averaging tens to hundreds of icosahedral particle images to resolve protein secondary structure elements using a Multi-Path Simulated Annealing optimization algorithm. J. Struct. Biol. 160, 11–27 (2007)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010)
CASISIPubMedArticle

Brünger, A. T. et al. Crystallography & NMR system: A new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr. D 54, 905–921 (1998)

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: neoholographic

You've dome nothing of the sort. To continue to insist you have makes you a disingenuous liar. You have posted videos of people giving their opinions. That's not evidence and you know that.

Of course I have. This is why you guys keep responding. You can't refute any of the evidence I have presented nor the logic of my argument and that's why you keep responding with incoherent babble. This is why Barcs had to phone a friend to try and get some answers. It's a 40 page thread because you guys can't refute anything that has been said.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: neoholographic

You've dome nothing of the sort. To continue to insist you have makes you a disingenuous liar. You have posted videos of people giving their opinions. That's not evidence and you know that.

Of course I have. This is why you guys keep responding. You can't refute any of the evidence I have presented nor the logic of my argument and that's why you keep responding with incoherent babble. This is why Barcs had to phone a friend to try and get some answers. It's a 40 page thread because you guys can't refute anything that has been said.

No, it's because having the last word requires 0 grey matter. Just a lot of time to waste. Doesn't matter if you actually have something to say, as long as you say it last. Bait thread to the very end.

a reply to: Phantom423

This must be the silly season.

Again, I have listed mountains of evidence that hasn't been refuted but unlike you, I also can form a coherent argument. Unlike you, I have my own thoughts.

So I don't just list evidence without comment or commentary. I explain why the evidence presented is connected to what I'm saying in the thread.

Like I said, you don't understand what I'm saying so you just copy and paste something but you don't present a coherent argument because you can't. For some reason, you think if you copy and paste something like this:

Brünger, A. T. et al. Crystallography & NMR system: A new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr. D 54, 905–921 (1998)

It means something. It means nothing if you can't explain why it pertains to the current topic being discussed. If I started a thread like this, the Moderators would shut it down.

I can't tell if you're serious or just trolling. I have never seen someone on ATS copy and paste something without presenting an explanation or commentary as to why what their pasting relates to the thread being discussed. You must be trolling because I don't see how anyone would think just copying and pasting without any commentary or explanation is logical on ATS.

a reply to: Phantom423

See my field is making those compounds under cGMP for phase 1 to 4. Even then those sorts of articles help

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: neoholographic

You've dome nothing of the sort. To continue to insist you have makes you a disingenuous liar. You have posted videos of people giving their opinions. That's not evidence and you know that.

Of course I have. This is why you guys keep responding. You can't refute any of the evidence I have presented nor the logic of my argument and that's why you keep responding with incoherent babble. This is why Barcs had to phone a friend to try and get some answers. It's a 40 page thread because you guys can't refute anything that has been said.

No, it's because having the last word requires 0 grey matter. Just a lot of time to waste. Doesn't matter if you actually have something to say, as long as you say it last. Bait thread to the very end.

LOL, I'm wasting so much time and that's why these guys have to run to Geneticists to find answers to simple questions.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: neoholographic

You've dome nothing of the sort. To continue to insist you have makes you a disingenuous liar. You have posted videos of people giving their opinions. That's not evidence and you know that.

Of course I have. This is why you guys keep responding. You can't refute any of the evidence I have presented nor the logic of my argument and that's why you keep responding with incoherent babble. This is why Barcs had to phone a friend to try and get some answers. It's a 40 page thread because you guys can't refute anything that has been said.

No, it's because having the last word requires 0 grey matter. Just a lot of time to waste. Doesn't matter if you actually have something to say, as long as you say it last. Bait thread to the very end.

LOL, I'm wasting so much time and that's why these guys have to run to Geneticists to find answers to simple questions.

...and I rest my case.

a reply to: neoholographic

Citations, references - where are they???

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Citations, references - where are they???

I've listed them. This is why there's a 40 page thread. I've backed everything I've said with evidence and I made a coherent argument based on the topic of the thread. So unlike you, I also add my own thoughts and commentary. If I were to do something idiotic like your posts, I would do this:

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

No commentary, no context, no links to the source material and no understanding of how to present a coherent argument. This is an idiotic post but I ask the Moderators not to erase it because it proves a point.

I don't just list evidence and say Go Fish. I actually have my own thoughts and I don't just copy and paste things in a vacuum. Like I said, you're either a troll or someone that doesn't have a clue as to what's being debated so you copy and paste without any explanations or commentary.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Citations, references - where are they???

I've listed them. This is why there's a 40 page thread. I've backed everything I've said with evidence and I made a coherent argument based on the topic of the thread. So unlike you, I also add my own thoughts and commentary. If I were to do something idiotic like your posts, I would do this:

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

No commentary, no context, no links to the source material and no understanding of how to present a coherent argument. This is an idiotic post but I ask the Moderators not to erase it because it proves a point.

I don't just list evidence and say Go Fish. I actually have my own thoughts and I don't just copy and paste things in a vacuum. Like I said, you're either a troll or someone that doesn't have a clue as to what's being debated so you copy and paste without any explanations or commentary.

is that not what you just did? a long list of citations without explaining exactly what you are citing. good work and all, but maybe next time some relevant quotes from the listed materials would help.