Can you name just one Stephanie, tell us what her credentials are and why she signed Steve's 'list'?
Yes. I think that would be possible. There is list of steves. Some of them are well-known enough to find out.
Again---science is not a 'majority rules'.
That's another reason it was dumb of you to try the bandwagon ploy. You lose on both counts.
All of your Steve's can be dead wrong. You struggle.
Arguing that they've all got it wrong, except for your 0.3% is pretty foolish, too. I don't know why you guys try that scam. It's a loser for you no matter how you spin it.
I found it interesting to see that John Craig Venter - "biologist known for being one of the first to sequence the human genome and for creating the first cell with a synthetic genome" (Wikipedia) denies common ancestry.
Evolution of neurotransmitter receptor systems.
Venter JC, di Porzio U, Robinson DA, Shreeve SM, Lai J, Kerlavage AR, Fracek SP Jr, Lentes KU, Fraser CM.
Source
Section of Receptor Biochemistry, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
Abstract
The presence of hormones, neurotransmitters, their receptors and biosynthetic and degradative enzymes is clearly not only associated with the present and the recent past but with the past several hundred million years. Evidence is mounting which indicates substantial conservation of protein structure and function of these receptors and enzymes over these tremendous periods of time. These findings indicate that the evolution and development of the nervous system was not dependent upon the formation of new or better transmitter substances, receptor proteins, transducers and effector proteins but involved better utilization of these highly developed elements in creating advanced and refined circuitry. This is not a new concept; it is one that is now substantiated by increasingly sophisticated studies. In a 1953 article discussing chemical aspects of evolution (Danielli, 1953) Danielli quotes Medawar, "... endocrine evolution is not an evolution of hormones but an evolution of the uses to which they are put; an evolution not, to put it crudely, of chemical formulae but of reactivities, reaction patterns and tissue competences." To also quote Danielli, "In terms of comparative biochemistry, one must ask to what extent the evolution of these reactivities, reaction patterns and competences is conditional upon the evolution of methods of synthesis of new proteins, etc., and to what extent the proteins, etc., are always within the synthetic competence of an organism. In the latter case evolution is the history of changing uses of molecules, and not of changing synthetic abilities." (Danielli, 1953). Figure 4 outlines a phylogenetic tree together with an indication of where evidence exists for both the enzymes that determine the biosynthesis and metabolism of the cholinergic and adrenergic transmitters and their specific cholinergic and adrenergic receptors. This figure illustrates a number of important points. For example, the evidence appears to show that the transmitters and their associated enzymes existed for a substantial period before their respective receptor proteins. While the transmitters and enzymes appear to exist in single cellular organisms, there is no solid evidence for the presence of adrenergic or cholinergic receptors until multicellular organisms where the receptors appear to be clearly associated with specific cellular and neuronal communication (Fig. 4). One can only speculate as to the possible role for acetylcholine and the catecholamine in single cell organisms.
Surprise.
Darwinism appears to be imploding - it's myths exposed.
Something just imploded. :biglol
BTW, Francis Collins, Venter's supervisor at the Human Genome Project, and an evangelical Christian, notes that genetic research confirms common descent.
And note above. Venter is pointing to common descent.
What’s significant is not so much whether Venter is right (I think he is), but what his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy suggests about the disarray in the study of biological origins. If common descent is up for grabs, what isn’t?
In science, everything is up for grabs. The guys who knock over big theories get the best rewards. But mostly, they fail.
Imagine physics in the century after Newton questioning whether there even is such a force as gravity or suggesting that really it decomposes into several different types of gravitational forces.
Which is what happened. Read Kuhn's
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Venter’s flight from orthodoxy is even more drastic. Common descent is thesanctum sanctorum of evolutionary biology. If scientists of Venter’s stature are now desecrating it, what’s next? Check it out here
Comes down to evidence, which is why most scientists accept common descent. The reason that there are fewer holdouts today, is that evolutionary development has shown the genetic basis for common descent.
I notice, BTW, that Venter freely admits:
Well, I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up so the tree, you know—there may be a bush of life…[laugher, joking]…So there is not a tree of life. In fact from our deep sequencing of organisms in the ocean, out of now, we have about 60 million unique gene sets, we’ve found 12 that look like a very, very deep branching, perhaps fourth domain of life that obviously is extremely rare that it only shows up out of those few sequences. But it’s still DNA-based…we’re going to find the same molecules and the same base systems wherever we look.
Surprise.
What does Venter know that you don't?
It's what I know that he doesn't. You see, there are a couple of things in the genetic code of bacteria that are spelled differently than they are in for example, vertebrates. But the rest of the code is identical to the point that the cytochome c of bacteria would do just fine in your body.
But here's the real key; the differences in coding sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies.
Yep. They appear just as they would if the code itself changed by evolution.
Surprise. Maybe surprise to Venter, too. But I suspect, since he describes common descent as a bush rather than a tree (which is the current understanding) that he actually knows this, too.
And then, there's this:
Paul Davies disagrees with him, saying that one form of life need not eliminate another: “You’re right that life as we know it is spread into a wide geographical parameter space, but it doesn’t fill it up totally…The archaea and the bacteria have coexisted peacefully for what, 2.5 billion years, 3 billion? I don’t know. Do you know, Craig, how far back to the branch point?” Venter replies, without hesitation, “3.5 billion.”
http://biologos.org/blog/dueling-scientists-and-the-tree-of-life-analyzing-the-id-response/#comments
Venter just mentioned the earliest divergence in the conventional common descent phylogeny. How about that? Turns out he accepts common descent.
Already knew about it. But clearly all this is a surprise to you. Does it bother you that Dembski set you up for a chump? Does it bother you enough to start thinking for yourself?
