"Intelligent Design" advocates a bit behind...

I was a bit amused to see the following posted at the ISCID board: Salty gets a revival.Wonder why the wizards at ISCID have not yet seen the poor scholarship in Davison's work?

Note that yersinia very nicely tore apart some more of the semi-meotic hypothesis in the second post

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6...And if salty was not enough over there..it looks like Peter Borger is getting his liver stomped out yet again on Gutob and non-random mutations

Of course he is...Also noitice that, as we did here, others are pointing out the direct contradictins between what Borger says and reality...

We hashed through that faraggo here as well, but it didn't have wings.

Ironically, they are frequently quoting or referring to EvC forum in their debates with Borger..Borger refers to the EvC debates as well...I also saw a compliment directed at a certain SLPx (not by Borger however )

"Evolution of all life forms on earth by random mutations followed by selection THAT is fantastic. If evolution plays a role on this planet to generate all life forms, than it is mediated by universal information carriers (creatons) that interact with matter in a biogenic field. That would make much more sense than suggesting a random process. Random mechanisms plus selection to give rise to all life forms is not even backed up by scientific observations."Emphases mine....

Oh yeah..the needle on that broken record makes such a lovely scratching sound

"Alix, I am 75, retired and without a laboratory. I do notice however that no one, to my knowledge, has ventured to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis. I can only wonder why? "Maybe because nobody thinks it worthwhile? Because, maybe, since he first dreamed it up nearly 20 years ago, back when he was about 55 with a lab, he didn't bother to?