My n00b understanding is that this forum is for posting topics from a critical point of view.
Overt and obvious religious evangelism of the “burn-in-hell” variety is stopped pretty well dead in its tracks.
However, we have a string of topics posted by Mechanist that have at their base the objective of punting the viewpoint of Intelligent Design - said topics posted without even a smidgen of skepticism. In fact, the forum is being used merely as a platform to reach out to the heathen amongst us, a pulpit for evangelism of the most devious kind.
Should such “un-skeptical” activities not be curtailed, given the purpose of the forum? There is fundamentally no difference between Mechanist’s posts and those of nstra.
I think such threads should just be relegated to the “Flame Wars” sub-forum or another appropriate sub-forum where they can be made propper fun off, deservingly so. They should certainly not be allowed under the roof of “science” in any way or form.
Wow, I did not know information about junk DNA actually having a function, biomolecular machines and how cells work, and preadaptations and evolutionary dynamics are flame worthy topics here at skeptic.za.org. Fascinating!
Thankfully we all know this isn’t the case and if you didn’t have an obvious agenda, people would be discussing it under the appropriate forum. As it is, they have been moved to the proper “debating” sub-forum. I am gratified to see that.
btw, your mock indignation above is a further lie. you have been exposed. again.
On sciforums you are the only one posting in the preadaptions and biomolecular machines threads, preaching to the choir?
On dawkins the preadaptions went of on an expanding earth trend on the first page and the biomolecular machines thread didn’t go anywhere.
Here you have been asked to expand and to explain. Like on MyADSL. On both these you evade like a springbok running for the line. You’re just that good.
In my humble opinion, your threads were correctly moved because the agenda was spotted and exposed. Job well done.
EDIT: my point being, appealing to the authority of two other websites does you no good. explain in so many words here why your threads needed to stay under science. Perhaps here I’ll actually get you to answer some of the intriguing questions.
Careful there, Mechanist. People might start seeing you for a hypocrite, too. That would be in addition to a dodger and a sad little joke. “Not worthy of scientific discussion,” eh? Who other than you said that?
Maybe if you actually answered questions, you’d get a more amenable response. A relentless barrage of cherry-picked facts, all tied together by the obvious a priori conclusion that some higher intelligence made it so, is not “scientific discussion” of any kind. I’d’ve thought that was pretty obvious.
But you have made your agenda more than sufficiently plain. Expect more cartoons.
Only one posting in those threads?
Here are glasses,
and if there is nothing wrong with your sight, stop lying ok.
The purpose of the threads are A) To show how cells work, all scientifically relevant topics including:
DNA replication and repair machinery (replisome)
DNA transcription machinery and RNA processing and translation machinery (Spliceosomes and ribosomes)
Cell cycle signaling network (pRB, e2F, CDKs)
Programmed cell death machinery (Apoptosis, autophagy, mitotic catastrophe)
Protein processing machinery (Chaperones, ubiquitin-proteasome system)
Intracellular signaling networks (protein kinases and phosphatases)
Mechanical machines for intracellular shuttling of biomolecules and cellular movement (Microtubule network, kinesin, dynein)
8 ) Energy production machines (Electron transport chain, F0F1 ATP synthase)
B) To show what preadaptations are and how they affect evolutionary trajectories. Topics include:
Emergence of genetic toolkits for body plans before the emergence of of organisms with body plans.
Repeated emergence of structures such as eyes and body plans in a variety of organisms across different kingdoms and phyla and the genetics (perhaps epigentics) involved.
C) To show that large streaks of genetic material previously known as “junk DNA” actually have a function. Including:
But, to each his own… if people want to put scientifically relevant topics in a flame wars section… so be it.
Junk DNA: Stretches of DNA previously believed to be useless ‘junk’ DNA play a vital role in the evolution of our genome.
Geee, people discussing scientifically relevant topics have agendas… Nooo way. How about it being:
A) To show how cells work.
B) To show what preadaptations are and how they affect evolutionary trajectories.
C) To show that large streaks of genetic material previously known as “junk DNA” actually have a function.
Still waiting for anyone here to show how or why these topics are NOT scientifically relevant. Waiting…
Well, that makes almost all of us. Waiting, I mean.
In the meantime, with a success rate of around one in a thousand, the output of this so–called “intelligent designer” of yours resembles much more that of an inept bungler. Or perhaps a mildly disturbed child with a penchant for crash-and-burn fantasy games.
Mmm, I think this is where I step in and look at everyone sternly… :-
I have been following the topics posted by Mechanist and I must say, I don’t quite know what to do with it. Some of it is scientifically relevant and proper discussion on the topics would actually benefit everyone. That said, most of it is a mass of unreadable fodder with no clear argument as well. I really don’t care either way, as long as the discussion stays in the relevent subforums. And this is the problem because it’s difficult to decide which sections to move it to.
So please. @Mechanist:
Keep your posts clear and simple. Present your arguments clearly. Replying with a wall of text and links is not proper argument and that will get the topics moved to a more appropriate section. By all means discuss the topic - don’t just post masses of listed text while ignoring relevant questions. @Everyone else:
Keep your posts civilized. If you have something to contribute to the argument then do so. If you don’t, watch from the sideline. Some are guilty of this logical fallacy which is not really helping.
As always, I’d like to hear your opinions and advise. And please - uses the ‘report to moderator’ links