Clearly you know more about copyright then you let on. It does not matter that (1) you did not modify the video, (2) that you did not strip the copyright info, and (3) that you did not re-title the video. It does not matter that you wanted to purchase a copy of the video. It does not matter that copies are available on YouTube.

You know this. Public display of someone else’s copyrighted work is illegal. Even if you own the DVD. Even if it is available on YouTube. This is, of course, why you will refrain from using it in the future. You should admit this and apologize instead of posting self-serving defenses to an act which you knew was wrong.

Really? I wasn’t around to hear the howls of discomfiture you mention, but I’ve never heard any pro-evo person express a fondness for 19th century views of the cell. If I had to guess at a typical response to this video, it would be:

1) Wow!

2) You see that guy taking his bag of lipds for a walk? Comparative genomic analysis shows that was constructed by co-opting an earlier “take a walk with a sugar molecule” but changing the anchor blah blah blah…”

The complexity generates a sense of wonder, and an opportunity to nibble away at the edges of human ignorance.

I’m afraid not, Tina. Look at this excerpt from his latest post:
“These quintessential questions are never asked because the answer is obvious: There is no chance that this could have happened, and most people with a modicum of common sense figure this out. One needs a Ph.D. in evolutionary theory to not figure this out.”

He’s saying it’s obvious, it’s common sense, and only the eggheads with PhD’s in evolutionary biology can’t see it. This is exactly the sort of complacent attitude about the “obvious” that I am criticizing.

Its a network where the nodes are genes and the connections show one gene affection the level of transcription of the other. Obviously when you take into account all the genes in a genome the network gets pretty large, but on a small scale you can see ‘motifs’ consisting of just a few genes that can act in a similar way to logic circuits.

“Is the clutter just “debris” or is it stuff that’s part of other similarly ordered processes?”

It’s because that video only shows a few processes when there are in fact hundreds of different tyes of protiens in the cell, not to mention other molecules, which are all swirling around bumping into each other. Ive seen 3d simulations of ecoli cells with realistic enzyme concentrations of just one signalling pathway and it looks like a jar of bees.

And that is why evolutionism is dead.

“Obviously” common descent via the blind watchmaker is invariably true, we just need to work out the “details”. This concept is so obvious anyone who questions it does so because of fundamentalist beliefs.

Fortunately, scientists question the “obvious” all of the time.

The interesting thing is, that with these and other commonly cited examples (such as the apparent flatness of the earth), the more we learn the more it becomes apparent that the “obvious” answer was wrong.

But when it comes to the machinery of life, the opposite is occurring. The more we learn, the more life appears to be designed, and the harder evolutionists have to work to explain away the increasing appearance of design. It reminds me of how increasingly accurate observations of the motion of the planets forced geocentric theory to become increasingly complex and convoluted until finally the whole laboriously constructed edifice collapsed under its own weight.