When RM+NS Just Doesn’t Cut It
Evolutionists are now saying that in embryonic mammary buds, Hoxd gene regulation evolved “by hijacking” a preexisting regulatory landscape. Or as the press release explains:A team of geneticists demonstrated that the emergence of mammary glands in placental mammals and marsupials results from recycling certain 'architect' genes. The latter, known as Hox genes, are responsible for coordinating the formation of the organs and limbs during the embryonic stage. Such genes are controlled by complex regulatory networks. In the course of evolution, parts of these networks were reused to produce different functions. Architect genes were thus requisitioned to form the mammary bud and, later, for gestation
Hijacking and recycling?
The teleology becomes particularly obvious, as usual, with the infinitive form: Networks were reused to produce … . And genes were requisitioned to form … .
The incessant use of such Aristotelian language is another sign of the failure of evolutionary thought.
First, press releases are written by media staff, not scientists. They have a history, regardless of subject, of erroneously embellishing on what is being announced, presumably to give more weight to the release than it really deserves.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if you have to harp on the improper use of language in press releases and scientific papers rather than addressing the subject of the research, you have lost any credibility your position thinks it has. And, yes, I know that a position can't think.
Your last to postings have been great examples of clutching at straws.
The only William Shakespeare I saw last time was when I visiting one man in a psychiatric clinic.
DeleteSeems like we have another one.
Bo maybe you should try reading the poster's name again.
Delete"First, press releases are written by media staff, not scientists. They have a history, regardless of subject, of erroneously embellishing on what is being announced, presumably to give more weight to the release than it really deserves... Secondly, if you have to harp on the improper use of language in press releases and scientific papers rather than addressing the subject of the research, you have lost any credibility your position thinks it has. And, yes, I know that a position can't think."
DeleteWhat specific wording in the press release misrepresents the science such that Cornelius's observation is without merit?
No: "What specific wording in the press release misrepresents the science such that Cornelius's observation is without merit?"
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are incapable of reading my posting name. Now you are incapable of reading the text that Cornelius so graciously bolded. Do other people have to do everything for you?
"What specific wording in the press release misrepresents the science such that Cornelius's observation is without merit?"
ReplyDelete"First, you are incapable of reading my posting name."
Um, no, that was Bo, not me. Ironic mistake on your part:)
"Now you are incapable of reading the text that Cornelius so graciously bolded. Do other people have to do everything for you?"
Nope, wrong again. You made a limp objection to Cornelius's point based on the notion that journalists aren't always accurate in their wording, and so I'm simply asking you what specifically in that wording misrepresents the scientific data. So far, no answer from you.
Either your belligerent disposition is making it impossible for you to understand simple questions, or you're a troll. I think it's the latter, and so I'll ignore future comments from you.