AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Sandor

form_srcid: Sandor

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Sandor

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Sandor%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2005/05/18 07:28:18, Link
Author: Sandor

Dear Mr Wagner,

I do not accept your unsubstantiated opinions and claims about the  origin of molecular machines. A much more credible view, supported by  scientific knowledge and evidence, is that they arose by evolution.

Yours sincerely

John Walker

Sounds to me like a fitting reply to CW's opinions and claims below.

[...] These molecular motors cannot be explained by any combination of random, unguided, or accidental processes and have clear and inescapable purpose. And purpose requires intent. To assemble these molecular motors requires insight, and [thus] intelligence.
Their existence is prima facie evidence of intelligent input into living systems. [...]

Date: 2005/05/18 09:43:20, Link
Author: Sandor
CW Wrote
The fact that there are at least 5 different types of these "motors" clearly demonstrates that they have changed over time and probably had a common origin.

I must concede that I have no knowledge on this particular subject. Would you care to explain why the likelyhood of some of these different types of motors to have evolved independently is so small? Is this a conclusion that can be inferred from the scientific text you quote and (I presume) studied thoroughly?

But this is all tangential to the real issue: An evolutionary path is assumed based on the fact that evolutionary processes have proven to be the most viable explanation for other organic structures to arise. It's up to you to provide a testable hypothesis from which can be deduced possible falsifications before you can expect to be taken seriously in the scientific field.

But instead of doing something constructive, you wait until someone else has done the hard work, and use their findings - which invariably raise new questions (how beautiful is the nature of science) - and, as some kind of leech, you attach yourself to these new area's of scientific interest and say: "you see? because we don't know how evolution could have produced it, it might as well have been designed!".

You are no contribution to the scientific community, in fact, I see your attitude towards science as quite disturbing.