Researchers made films to help explain the spliceosome

ET: The things you don’t know would fill volumes. Quite true. That's why I do not get involved in discussions where I am poorly informed. Anyway, if you've got the background then keep on making the arguments! JVL

JVL:

I didn’t know you were highly educated in terms of such biological topics.

The things you don't know would fill volumes. ET

ET: Yes, JVL. Your ignorance of biology is well known. That is the point. You have to be ignorant of biology or a total loser, to think that blind and mindless processes produced the spliceosome. I didn't know you were highly educated in terms of such biological topics. My bad, sorry. If you had just provided your academic credentials I would have been more respectful. JVL

@JimThibodeau

Worth noting that this came from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge Biosciences campus.

And?

Buncha stupid ol’ Darwinists.

Because if you are a darwinist you are always incredibly intelligent and infallible. Sure. :) Truthfreedom

Yes, JVL. Your ignorance of biology is well known. That is the point. You have to be ignorant of biology or a total loser, to think that blind and mindless processes produced the spliceosome. ET

Earth to Jim Thibodeau- Those alleged Darwinists- you don't know if they are or not- don't have anything that can account for the existence of the spliceosome. It goes against everything we know to even think that blind and mindless processes can produce the spliceosome. The concept can't even be tested. That means it is not science. ET

Worth noting that this came from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge Biosciences campus. Buncha stupid ol’ Darwinists. Jim Thibodeau

ET: And again, it is very telling that the anti-ID people are avoiding this thread that pertains to biology. Personally I don't want to argue about a particular point that I only have limited knowledge of. There's no reason to get involved if I can't deal with the details; that doesn't help forward the conversation on either side. JVL

And again, it is very telling that the anti-ID people are avoiding this thread that pertains to biology. ET

Martin_r, Take a look at this: https://thenode.biologists.com/off-and-on-its-more-complicated-than-we-thought/research/ jawa

Martin_r: “ but why don’t take some grant money :))))) easy money, no responsibility, no results are needed in OOL… just go and do the research :)))” Well, that’s dishonest. Honesty is necessary in science too. jawa

Jawa, Jawa, let me repeat what prof. James Tour said: "One could argue that origin-of-life research is even more befuddled now than it was in 1952 since more questions have evolved than answers, and the voluminous new data regarding the complexity within a cell makes the target much more daunting than it used to be." well said. Most lay people think that scientists are 'so close' to explain the origin of life. Exact opposite is true - scientists were never soooooo faaaaar away from the explanation :))))) It must be very frustrating for OOL researchers, because these guys are smart, no doubt, and they know by now that this can't be explained... EVER.... but why don't take some grant money :))))) easy money, no responsibility, no results are needed in OOL... just go and do the research :))) PS: Lets don't forget the problem with the origin of viruses... Viruses - the most abundant biological entity on Earth. These days we can see, that a small viral particle can set the whole world upside down. We can't do anything, just sit and wait, and to let our designed immune system to take care of. Yet, scientists have NO CLUE where viruses come from. New virus-spieces are discovered every day. Common ancestor does not work with viruses, because viruses are not made of cells. So, the origin of viruses = the same problem like the origin-of-life problem.... martin_r

What’s the real missing link? Any guess ? The origin of complex functionally specified (prescriptive) information That’s all, buddy. Just figure out that and you may pocket $10M (sans the tax) right away. Piece of cake, isn’t it? Yeah, right. :) jawa

Martin_r @2: Exactly. Just a reminder in case we forget: “ Two-thirds of a century since the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment, where some racemic amino acids were formed from small molecules and an electrical discharge, the world is no closer to generating life from small molecules — or any molecules for that matter — than it was in 1952. One could argue that origin-of-life research is even more befuddled now than it was in 1952 since more questions have evolved than answers, and the voluminous new data regarding the complexity within a cell makes the target much more daunting than it used to be.” - professor James Tour. Any objections? :) [the sound of silence] Hello? Anybody there? PavelU? Dr Cronin? Evo2.0 $10M OOL prize? Dr Art Hunt (UKentucky) ? Dr L. Moran (UToronto)? Hello? jawa

"A friend tells us that Michael Lynch of the Biodesign Institute of Arizona State) has argued that the spliceosome is so complex, because it just couldn’t help being that way. Here’s a question: How did such an explanation get to be called “science”?" it is pseudo-science, in other words, it is a story-telling... and all these just-so-stories sound very absurd especially in 21st century. martin_r

can't wait when this blind-unguided-evolution-theory-craziness ends ... this theory is absurd in the highest possible degree (to paraphrase Darwin) martin_r

ET @1 evolutionists wish their biggest problem is to explain the origin of spliceosome. martin_r

Evolutionism definitely cannot explain the spliceosome. ET