Did initial DNA have helicase encoding capacity or not?
I doubt it. When are you going to realize that helicase is not responsible for the helical structure of DNA?

Non-existent?

No. One can buy DNA in the absence of proteins, either purified or synthetic, very cheaply. Why don't you buy some and learn something instead of evading simple questions?

Are you kidding? Of course you can buy DNA. There were no biotechnology vendors in geologic time eras and TT is to some extent about questions like whether DNA would be naturally formed without proteins. Your DNA was intelligently designed.

Non-existent?

No. One can buy DNA in the absence of proteins, either purified or synthetic, very cheaply. Why don't you buy some and learn something instead of evading simple questions?

It looks to me as though you may have realized that yet another assumption of yours was wrong.

Did initial DNA have helicase encoding capacity or not?

What's the state of DNA in the absence of proteins, Bradford?

Non-existent? It's a good question for a MET fan. How is DNA naturally generated in the absence of proteins?

Sure. Right after you explain why one would need to invoke "The capacity to evolve a protein complex inducing supercoils prior to the evolution of helical DNA or failing that, a functional DNA helix lacking the cited proteins."

What's the state of DNA in the absence of proteins, Bradford?

Why would single-stranded binding proteins and DNA topoisomerases evolve prior to DNA helicases?

Several reasons, but someone who doesn't understand the concept of supercoiling wouldn't understand them.

Baloney. Cite a reason that is dictated by data as opposed to a story designed to fit a hypothesis.

Jack: Intelligent design theorists

Theories, by definition, are well-tested, have a track record for making accurate predictions, and lead to new knowledge. ID has none of those characteristics.

…are investigating the observation made by other scientists…

Which raises an interesting question: why aren't they making any observations of their own?

And why would you describe analogies and metaphors as observation?

Intelligent design theorists are investigating the observation made by other scientists that certain things in nature look much more like products of nanotechnology than the tinkering of a blind watchmaker.

This has a parallel to homology arguments. Rather than noting a physical analogy and attributing similarity to an stochastic\selection process, the teleological approach notes a product similarity and attributes causation to intelligence.

the part I was contesting was the part where he claimed that ID was an "interesting theological argument". I don't know what hat he pulled that out of, but that bunny hopped off long ago.

Please excuse the confusion. I believe that is a different focus from what I understood DonaldM to be concerned about.

I would marginally agree that Judge Jones made a mistake by saying ID was an "interesting theological argument". I suggest theology wasn't the focus of the "Whether ID is Science" section of his ruling and the phrase was merely a literary reference to the interesting argument. However, this provided room for misinterpretation (intentional, or not) with what exactly Judge Jones was ruling when he used the adjective, "theological".

That being said, there were other, preceding sections of the ruling that directly addressed the theological nature of Dover's policy, which was represented as "ID". This is where things get sticky. Was Dover's policy actually representative of ID? I suspect a lot of people here would think it wasn't. But that distinction wasn't argued in Judge Jones' courtroom. What was presented was quite the opposite.

Dover's policy was wrapped around the book Of Pandas and People and visa versa. This book, in turn, was embraced by the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement as representative of ID. Behe, himself, refused to walk away from the book. That was a fatal mistake, in my opinion. During the trial, I kept asking myself "Why don't they just deny that book has anything to do with ID?" I am still not sure of the answer to that one.

So based on the evidence presented, Judge Jones ruled…
1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

3. …an Objective Dover Citizen Would Perceive
Defendants' Conduct to be an Endorsement of Religion

This means, in the town of Dover and in Judge Jones' courtroom, the term "ID" was, by definition, a theological argument. Which is why, after the previous three sections established it, Judge Jones probably felt comfortable with informally referring to ID as "an interesting theological argument" in the fourth section titled Whether ID is Science.

Addressing the point underlying the following comment,

Even Mike Gene does not refer to ID as science.

I say, Mike Gene still lives with his grandmother, as is well known in certain hilly areas. However, there were two parts to the comment by Judge Jones regarding Intelligent Design - the part I was contesting was the part where he claimed that ID was an "interesting theological argument". I don't know what hat he pulled that out of, but that bunny hopped off long ago.