DNA, Where did the code come from?

I wonder if any of these devout Neo-Darwinists will ever come to realize that they been played, eh?

Quote:

I wonder if any of these devout Neo-Darwinists will ever come to realize that they been played, eh?

That reminds me of one of my whacky ID predictions.

Someday science will uncover enough evidence for ID that even the most devout Neo-Darwinist will say :
"What the **** was I THINKING!"

Or words to that effect...

[Margulis] also held a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism that she felt were excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believed that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."

"The neo-Darwinist population-genetics tradition is reminiscent of phrenology, I think, and is a kind of science that can expect exactly the same fate. It will look ridiculous in retrospect, because it is ridiculous."

Lynn Margulis, evolutionary theorist extraordinaire,...

I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it. (Richard Dawkins)

Someday science will uncover enough evidence for ID that even the most devout Neo-Darwinist will say :
"What the **** was I THINKING!"

how do you suppose mere mortal scientists will get up on your cloud?

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there has been a considerable amount of evidence for the ID argument presented, which by the way, you and others have not been able to refute but only say 'it ain't there'. Farmer's charge of 'averting your eyes' comes to mind.

Ive been challenging you and Lamont to actually give us some categories of these ample amounts of data and evidence of which you try to convince Setanta

Their results are artifacts of their belief, but this fact can hardly be visible to them until they are willing to question what they have previously taken for granted

First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.

First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.

“if ... changes in the genetic material are indeed mediated by other cellular molecules, then the idea of ‘randomness’ lacks all but the most trivial descriptive meaning, referring only to our knowledge of the mutation event.”

Only a fool would try to convince him or you of anything that you didn't already believe, eh, Farmer. Like the man said:

Still trying smartssery instead of discussing real evidence eh?

yes, because evidence has shown that...

Well at least you can see smartassery, you always turn a blind eye to real evidence.

Farmer, can you, in your own words (or anyone you want to quote, I don't care) explain why Dawkins and his ilk objected so vociferously to Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium?

Why "saltation" was objected to by Neo-Darwinists so adamantly that a brilliant theorist like Goldschmidt was demonized as a crazed nutcase?