I haven't posted in quite some time, but I would like to correct some things.
Magomago, I don't want to sound rude but you are incorrect here. The Creation model that is being proposed for teaching in school does not mention God as the intelligence, it merely says that an intelligence is responsible for creating life and order. No doctrine from any religion is taught, as to avoid the valid concern you have with school becoming a "preaching class." The Biblical account of creation is not taught (ie God resting).
Cquark, the majority-held mechanism for evolution is natural selection, which is not a random process. You are correct. Natural selection depends on environmental variables in which the frequency of inheritable characteristics are changed.
However, do not be mistaken: Natural selection never brings about new information. It never changes a finger into an opposable thumb.
Evolution is 100% dependent on mutations, which are, in fact, random. Without mutations, there is no new genetic information. Mutations are random and absolutely neccessary, and without them there is no way for new information to be introduced into an organism. Without them, evolution is not possible.
Interestingly enough, scientists have never observed or documented a mutation in which new genetic information was created. In nearly every account of genetic mutations we have seen, the mutations are information-degrading... they actually destroy information or reduce the amount of information.
A lot of people here, I'm afraid.
Most evolutionists would disagree with your analysis, in that nothing is ever "designed" because there is no intelligence designer. Evolution theorizes that random mutations create new genetic information that allow for positive improvements, thereby enacting natural selection which proliferates that improvement throughout the species. The first step in a new stage of evolution is a random mutation. It is quite simple: there is no other way for new genetic information to be formed.
Contrary to what many people here like to believe, there is not much in evolution that can be demonstrated. Most of the evidence that I argue against is speculative. (Please, do not respond with evidence for micro-evolution, or natural selection, because both of those are observable and able to be tested. They are scientific.)
Evolution as you teach it isn't scientific, because it isn't concerned about what can be proven and demonstrated, it's concerned about past events which are unrepeatable.
Many of you here seem to be safeguarding evolution. You seem to respond harshly and angrily when someone points out a shortcoming in evolution's main postulates. We all claim to desire the truth (at least I would hope), so why not lay out all the cards? Why not welcome the criticism, because if evolution is true, then there should be nothing to worry about?
In these discussions, I don't preach to anyone about Christianity, I argue using your own evidence. It is never the data that I dispute; it is always the conclusions that I argue are invalid and unsupported. I welcome a rational discussion, and if you want to talk, let's talk. But don't detract into cynical humor, insulting, harsh reactions and unfair implications. They only weaken your position.
Magomago, I don't want to sound rude but you are incorrect here. The Creation model that is being proposed for teaching in school does not mention God as the intelligence, it merely says that an intelligence is responsible for creating life and order. No doctrine from any religion is taught, as to avoid the valid concern you have with school becoming a "preaching class." The Biblical account of creation is not taught (ie God resting).
Cquark, the majority-held mechanism for evolution is natural selection, which is not a random process. You are correct. Natural selection depends on environmental variables in which the frequency of inheritable characteristics are changed.
However, do not be mistaken: Natural selection never brings about new information. It never changes a finger into an opposable thumb.
Evolution is 100% dependent on mutations, which are, in fact, random. Without mutations, there is no new genetic information. Mutations are random and absolutely neccessary, and without them there is no way for new information to be introduced into an organism. Without them, evolution is not possible.
Interestingly enough, scientists have never observed or documented a mutation in which new genetic information was created. In nearly every account of genetic mutations we have seen, the mutations are information-degrading... they actually destroy information or reduce the amount of information.
A lot of people here, I'm afraid.
Most evolutionists would disagree with your analysis, in that nothing is ever "designed" because there is no intelligence designer. Evolution theorizes that random mutations create new genetic information that allow for positive improvements, thereby enacting natural selection which proliferates that improvement throughout the species. The first step in a new stage of evolution is a random mutation. It is quite simple: there is no other way for new genetic information to be formed.
Contrary to what many people here like to believe, there is not much in evolution that can be demonstrated. Most of the evidence that I argue against is speculative. (Please, do not respond with evidence for micro-evolution, or natural selection, because both of those are observable and able to be tested. They are scientific.)
Evolution as you teach it isn't scientific, because it isn't concerned about what can be proven and demonstrated, it's concerned about past events which are unrepeatable.
Many of you here seem to be safeguarding evolution. You seem to respond harshly and angrily when someone points out a shortcoming in evolution's main postulates. We all claim to desire the truth (at least I would hope), so why not lay out all the cards? Why not welcome the criticism, because if evolution is true, then there should be nothing to worry about?
In these discussions, I don't preach to anyone about Christianity, I argue using your own evidence. It is never the data that I dispute; it is always the conclusions that I argue are invalid and unsupported. I welcome a rational discussion, and if you want to talk, let's talk. But don't detract into cynical humor, insulting, harsh reactions and unfair implications. They only weaken your position.
Humorous, but clearly illogical. I fear that many people actually try to use this type of reasoning in a serious way.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Just picking this one thing out for now. Evolution is also concerned with current and future state of things. Evolutionary theory is a valuable tool in research. It makes predictions, it rules out fruitless approaches. It predicts the cryptic enhancer in the IgH locus, it suggests looking at CpG islands to find genes. Any theory that works so demonstrably well is going to (and should) be used. It's a tool in the war against cancer and any other disease you care to name. It's a theory that works, that's really about as scientific as it gets.
I'm all for teaching Creation in school, but I'd be happy with simply the allowance for problems of evolution to be discussed in a nontrivial, nondefensive way.
So far, every time the problems are discussed, the arguments are glossed over, sometimes changed and then refuted, and often times the response is "Well, we don't have an answer now but we will later"... but that is such a nonscientific explanation it shocks me.
This is a bit off the topic of evolution/creation, but I wanted to respond to this. There is not a single piece of evidence that suggests the Bible has been altered. The 20,000+ manuscripts and fragments in existence that are thousands of years old serve only as a testament to the fascinating preservation of the orginal writings. The Bible is the single most well preserved and documented writing of antiquity in existence.
Plus, even our modern Bible translations are translated from the original Greek manuscripts. They are not translations of translations, so there is no real concern for massive accumulating translation errors.
Indeed, a test for a theory's validity is in one part its usefulness in making predictions, however, many of the predictions evolution has made in the past have been proven to be grossly wrong. There are many examples I could point out.
Secondly, the usefulness of evolution as a tool to other fields of research has been greatly exaggerated. It is a real stretch to connect advances in medical science with an understanding of macroevolution.
Besides those points, the concern is still whether or not evolution is actually valid. I do not care whether you attribute a medical breakthrough to an understanding of evolution as much as I care whether the whole of evolution is a practice in self-deception.
We both have the same data to look at, but I will argue that your conclusions are false and I will present an explanation that better fits the data.
Natural selection alone doesn't bring about change, that is supported. But natural selection is not the sole aspect of evolution. It is the inherent combination of natural selection, genetic variation, and fercundity. These are the crucial aspects. If you want to argue that new information cannot occur, one must argue the combination of all three aspects, and not just look at natural selection.
However, the accumulation of muations, and the genetic pool is not random. A single mutation by itself is random, but the allelic frequency in the population is not. Again, one must look at all aspects of evolution, natural selection, fercundity, and genetic variation through mutation.
False. A general event from the literature involves the catalytic activity of phosphotriesterases. These proteins catalyze the breakdown, of well you can guess it, phosphotriester bonds. However, phosphotriesterase bonds do not occur in nature. On the other hand, they do promote the breakdown of human made pesticides and in nerve toxins like sarin, which have only existed in the past 50 years. The interesting observation is that bacteria near areas of heavily phosphotriester usage show activity of phosphotriesterases.
Now, lets remember biochemistry, the key and lock concept of enzymes. How could an enzyme arise that could catalyze chemicals never seen by bacteria? Let's not forget that phophotriesterase is not seen in other bacteria. What is going on here?
The evidence is highly compeling to biochemical research, demonstrating that new catalytic activity can be obtained in less than 50 years.
There are many other examples, including nonsense mutation suppressing mutations through the tRNA (especially when there is already the appearance of the 21st and 22nd amino acids used in life). I'm sure you are well aware of the beneficial mutation rate of the protein coat of the HIV virus, as that is clearly beneficial to its infectious ability. That is clearly not a case of a mutation resulting in the "loss of information."
So I find it a bit dishonest to make such a flat claim there is no evidence of "a mutation in which new genetic information was created." I don't know how far you are into the literature, as that is clearly not the case.
Slightly off the specific topic. Single point mutations, as many people think of, are not the sole guidance of genetic variation. All one has to do is wxamine the genetic size of an E Coli cell and a Yeast cell. Despite both being unicellular, the Yeast cell clearly has a greater genomic size. Simple point mutations do not solely describe how the genome size grew. There must have been other massive changes to the genome, including genetic conjugation (as yeast cells can mate), the selection of beneficial mutations, and the creation of new enzymes through ideas like the RNA world hypothesis. As I outlined above, there is already evidence of new genetic information being "created" in less than 50 years.
Many of the fundamental concepts and theories are "speculative." We cannot see the atom, so should we give up on the notion of quantum theory because it "cannot be demonstrated?" The hallmark of any organic chemistry lecture are the mechanisms of chemical reactions. Yet, we cannot see the reactions, we cannot see all the intermediates, nor can we see the actual collisions. So should we put a hole in chemistry because it "cannot be demonstrated?" That's specious reasoning. What's next, just because we cannot see Newtonian forces, that is also at a level flawed?
If you want to argue that evolution is speculative, then invaribly you have to argue that all of science is speculative. Now, if you want to argue against what we can understand from science, well that's open to debate. But if you want to argue against evolution since it is "speculative," then I sure hope you are willing to throw wrenches in just about every other fundamental aspect of science.
As many scientists already have to deal with, there is so much misunderstanding of science that causes most debates to be worthless, as time is spent trying to explain ideas like thermodynamics. Science is always welcoming criticism, get back to me when you find a sizeable criticism that is acknowledged about the fundamentals of evolution (and not something like punctuated equilibrium).
I'm ready to talk.
Hey, I'm open for discussion. Let's see some of these predictions. But do make sure that they are pointing at important aspects like genetic variation, fercundity, and natural selection (and not something tertiary to evolution, like puncuated equilibrium).
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Evolving Debate
This past spring, the Kansas State Board of Education held hearings on a proposal that evolution be taught as a controversial scientific theory. The mainstream science community effectively boycotted the debate, but the mainstream media didn't have that luxury. If it wasn't news already, this month President Bush weighed in. The question for journalists is not whether to cover it, but how. NPR science correspondent David Kestenbaum shares his thoughts with Brooke.
http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram.py?file=otm/otm082605c.mp3
Can someone explain to me how Intelligent Design can be even called a scientific theory?
It shows no predictive value.
It is untestable.
It is supported by abstract ideas tied together by logic, rather than even a single piece of hard evidence.
It is "supported" by pointing out weaknesses in another theory. (evolution can't be correct because...so ID must be true)
In short, ID is an "anti-theory". It draws its best support by being anti-evolution, and it shows no characteristics of a scientific theory. I'd place it under "philosophy" if you want to claim it has nothing to do with God. Or under theology if you think it's intertwined with the idea of the a divine being. (I think theology)
Bottom line, ID belongs in a theology or philosophy class, while evolution belongs in a science class.
It shows no predictive value.
It is untestable.
It is supported by abstract ideas tied together by logic, rather than even a single piece of hard evidence.
It is "supported" by pointing out weaknesses in another theory. (evolution can't be correct because...so ID must be true)
In short, ID is an "anti-theory". It draws its best support by being anti-evolution, and it shows no characteristics of a scientific theory. I'd place it under "philosophy" if you want to claim it has nothing to do with God. Or under theology if you think it's intertwined with the idea of the a divine being. (I think theology)
Bottom line, ID belongs in a theology or philosophy class, while evolution belongs in a science class.
For the same reasons, I don't think anyone can explain how Intelligent Design can even be called "intelligent."
Why not? They are alternatives to current theories proposed for all natural occurances. Everything in science is a theory. How chemicals interact? Theory. Why objects behave when forces are applied? Theory. How electricity and magnetism are related? Theory. The sub-atomic forces governing the nucleus? Theory. How electrons behave? Theory.
Your computer is only working because of a theory. Your TV works because of a theory. Your car is working because of a theory. Your lights turning on when you hit a switch is nothing more than a theory in action.
The theory of evolution teaches that only through mutations is new information introduced. Natural selection, and the ability to reproduce (fecundity) can only rearrange the information into new combinations, and produce a proliferation of certain traits. It cannot introduce new traits.
I do argue that new information cannot be introduce by evolutionistic mechanisms, but you are mistaken if you think that evolution claims that anything besides mutations is capable of producing new information.
It is quite simple, abj13: If mutations cannot introduce an inheritable, positive trait that effects an organism so to enact the laws of natural selection, then there is no new information. You are correct that changes in allele frequencies are not random. I did not argue otherwise.
But, you are missing the point: If a single mutation does not create a beneficial, inheritable change in an organism, then natural selection plays no role in proliferating that mutation, and the mutation is lost. (If the mutation is harmful, the organism will not survive to pass its mutation down the line.)
So you see, if a mutation does not make a change that is either beneficial or harmful, there is no sense talking about natural selection, because it plays no role. Any accumulation of these non-beneficial, non-harmful mutations would be due to sheer chance. So you see, talking about single mutations is a very important aspect of debating the possibility of macroevolution.
It is very presumptious to claim that your example of the phosphodiesterase enzyme is evidence for the creation of new genetic information. Your basic argument says that since we detect the presence of this enzyme's activity, and that since we know the enzyme's activity is due to the presence of human-made chemicals, you concluce that the human-made chemicals are the CAUSE of the enzyme's creation. You are assuming that it is not possible for the baceria to have already had the genetic information to code for the protein, and it was simply triggered by the presence of the chemicals.
What is even more amazing, is that you are claiming that this enzyme, and the genetic information required for coding its structure, was created and proliferated in the time span of 50 years! Surely your arguement cannot be serious. If you are not claiming what I just said, then you can clearly see that no new information is being created, but rather, preexisiting information in the form of previously unexpressed genes was simply being utlized due to the triggering from the presence of these chemicals.
Your example of the yeast cell is merely a speculation, without concrete evidence to support it. The HIV example is a good example of an increased mutation rate, but still, no new functional information is being created by these mutations. Rather, the mutation of the protein coat allows the virus to avoid detection by immune defenses. The HIV example is probably the best case for new information being created, but upon closer examination there is actually no new functional, beneficial information being created. The changing protein coat is a defense mechanism, but the fact that it changes does not mean new information is being created. (Read: new, functional, information.)
It is a common practice among evolutionary biologists to compare their field of study with other, established fields, when really there is no tangible comparison. Surely you can see the difference.
Do not try to pretend that I am challenging Quantum Theory, or Organic Chemistry, or whatever other field of science you care to name. My arguements are directed at the evidence proposed for the theory of evolution, and you can make counter-arguements if you wish. But do not try to compare evolution to other things and tell me I must accept both or neither.
What is the best evidence for evolution, then? The fossil record? Surely, you would have a tough time defending that. Microevolution, or natural selection? You know its illogical to say that microevolution is a support for macroevolution. They are entirely different things. One is observable, the other is not.
Chemistry, Physics, Microevolution... these are different from Macroevolution. I can test and experiement with the first three, but I can do nothing beside speculate about the latter, because the evidence that is required to accept macroevolution is simply not there.
So, your answer is "I can't be bothered by your dumb question, because you are not smart enough to understand what I know to be true."
There is an ample supply of unanswered questions that continue to be unanswered. The criticisms are mounting, but no one seems to have the time or ability to settle them.
I think that if I mentioned that lacking intermediary fossils in the fossil record, it would probably not mean anything because it has been said so many times it has lost its meaning to most people. But, gaps in the fossil record is a powerful arguement against the plausibility of evolution. Where are the millions and millions of different creatures neccessary to bridge the gaps between the fossils we now have uncovered? And yes, tremendous gaps do exist. Could they perhaps not have been found because they do not exist?
By the way, you seem to be implying taht I don't agree with microevolution, including the roles of natural selection, genetic variation and reproduction, but this is simply false. Of course I believe in microevolution... it is readily observable, and testable. It is your duty to bridge the divide between microevolution and macroevolution, and so far, I have yet to see a rational bridge.
Sure, and just like astrology and alchemy, the lack of real evidence is a devastating blow to macro-evolutionary theory. That is why people give no respect to those particular "theories".
But, it is a practice in fallacious arguing to attempt to discredit Creation by comparing it to already debunked theories.
There is evidence - fossil evidence, as well as DNA alignment data.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. Evolution is.
You are wrong. There is definitive evidence that the Bible has been altered.
First, we need to get rid of the misleading term, the Bible. Every major branch of the Christian Church has its own set of books that it calls the Bible, ranging in number from a couple dozen books for some of the more restrictive canons to over 80 for the Ethiopian canon. How many letters to the Corinthians did Paul write? The Catholics include two in their Bible, while the Ethiopians include three.
Second, we need to acknowledge that we have no original manuscripts and that our earliest manuscripts are fragments of copies of copies. Unsurprisingly, our early manuscripts disagree. One large disagreement is the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The ending that was declared canonical at the Council of Trent in the 16th century by the Catholic Church (and which is also used by Protestant churches) is called the Marcan Appendix and is present is none of our earliest manuscripts. Later manuscripts have two different endings, a short one and a long one. The Council of Trent chose the long one.
Clearly, one ending or both was an alteration, as the Gospel of Mark either had neither of the two endings originally or one of them. There are plenty of other examples, but you can eaisly google the Marcan Appendix, as this is the best known alteration and this modification also has a commonly used name.
This is simply false. One of the most common types of mutation is the duplication of a gene and its subsequent modification, creating a new gene, i.e. adding information to the genome by creating two different genes where there was once only one gene.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Then what are you defining as "information?" A mutation by itself changes the genetic information, therefore changes the genetic sequence and creates new genetic information (in comparison to the wildtype genotype). Are you trying to say that information must be phenotypically represented?
I don't understand what you are getting at with that statement. A simple statement falsifies what you said: A negative mutation that is inheritable affects an organism to enact the laws of natural selection, but that is creating "new information."
Now understand what I said with the previous statement, a negative mutation does not necessarily mean it will be "selected out of the population" or remain at a low frequency. That allele will remain, because populations are not always in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Mating is not random. Population size is not always sufficiently large. There is emmigration and immigration. This will enable a negative mutation to remain in the population and/or propegate.
Another thought-provoking example is this: A negative mutation could affect the running ability of a organism, but may make that organism more attractive. Is that negative or positive?
Your characterization of mutations is way too black and white. You assume a "negative" mutation will not be passed onto further generations. However, not all negative mutations impact reproduction to sufficiently inhibit it. Mutations have a wide spread in their effects, because of aspects like redundancy and degeneratcy. Mutations are not always "on and off" switches for genes. A mutation could also cause an increase or decreased amount of protein production. This should be obvious when looking at regulatory proteins like transcription factors. What is the difference in a person who has 100mg/dl of glucose in their blood, versus a person with 95 mg/dl of glucose? There won't be a noticeable phenotype to affect reproduction, despite the genetic difference.
Genotype does not always equal phenotype.
Furthermore, your concepts of netural mutations is incorrect. Genes are linked. They are linked on strands of DNA and the lengths of chromosomes. The natural selection of one gene on part of a chromosome will also influence the allelic frequency of other genes, since they are linked on the same chromosome.
Think about it. If a organism with a high level of fitness and reproductive potential suddenly gains a "neutral" mutation, what will happen to the neutral mutation's allelic frequency? Before the mutation, its frequency (for the sake of simplicity) was zero. But after organism reproduces, that neutral mutation's frequency is greater than zero. Since most of the offspring will likely have a high level of fitness and reproductive potential, the "neutral" mutation will propegate in each subsequent generation, creating a new form of genetic information. The accumulation of this neutral mutation is not random. It is inherently coupled to the rest of the genome, and the other aspects of evolution.
Even if the neutral mutation is in association with an organism with a low level of fitness and reproductive potential, it will still accumulate (we cannot assume we are in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium).
Therefore, saying a neutral mutation will be completely random, is ignoring what I repeated in my earlier post, that everything in evolution must be considered together with fercunidty, genetic variation, and natural selection. A neutral mutation's allelic frequency can only increase, since there is not negative selection
NO!
That is not even close to what I was saying. The chemicals provided an environmental selective pressure to promote the selection of the phosphotriesterase protein with a high affinity for phosphotriester bonds. The allele would have never been propegated and refined if there was not the chemical selective pressure. The mutation, though, is random, but must have been recent, because A)no other bacteria show phophotriesterase activity, B)phosphotriesterases have only been "abundant" in the past 50 years. But read my next part of my response:
That conclusion doesn't take the final step, when I posed the question: "How could an enzyme arise that could catalyze chemicals never seen by bacteria?" Now let me frame that question. Since bacteria have never been exposed to phosphotriester pesticides, phosphotriesterase should be a "neutral" gene and protein. Now, if we assume what you said, that phosphotriesterase is already present in bacteria, it should be seen in other bacteria with zero effect on their fitness. Yet, we've got a problem.
Observation: No other species bacteria contain phosphotriesterase or analogues similar in its activity.
I reminded you in my earlier post about the the "key and lock" concept of enzymes. Enzymes are highly selective for their substrates.
One must not also jump to the idea that phosphotriesterase is randomly distributed, and awaiting a selective pressure to propegate its allele. The problem with that idea, is the initial assumption. If phosphotriesterase is randomly distributed, it should be easily seen in other bacteria. But that isn't the observation.
So where did phosphotriesterase arise? If it was already present, it should be present in other populations of bacteria, only as a neutral affect on those species. But that isn't the observation. Therefore, pinning that phosphotriesterase has always existed is a badly sinking ship.
The conclusions we can draw is that a mutation had to result in the new enzymatic activity. This mutation must have occured very recently, because of the activity is not seen in other bacteria, nor is it seen in other populations of bacteria that have been exposed to the chemicals. Further selection and mutation would refine the enzymatic site, to promote the high affinity phosphotriesterase has for human chemicals.
New genetic and phenotypic information arose.
I write with specific purpose. What was said:
Catalytic activity does not equal a new enzyme. Many enzyme are similar in structure, but differ when it comes to the most important aspect, the active site.
As I said in my earlier post, and throughout this post:
"Let's not forget that phophotriesterase is not seen in other bacteria."
For it to be pre-existing, you will have to so some observations that phosphotriesterase is present in other bacteria, especially its relatives.
Since it is not present, it must have arisen somewhere, creating new information. The chemical selection for it allowed the information to suddenly arise in high afinnity and frequency.
And how? You statement is at the level of saying "no you are wrong."
LOL, what are you defining as "new?" Seems like you are dancing around the issue by demanding something has to have a new "use." Protein coat A is not genetically or phenotypically the same as protein coat B. That is completely new information, because the genetic information changed, and the functionality has changed (now it can avoid the previous generation of anti-bodies).
Actually no. Unless you make absurd claims abou the fossil record, ie like others assume that fossils have a high frequency of being preserved.
So, an experiment with the manipulation of variables is required for it to be "non-speculative?" That's more specious reasoning. By your own logic, our ideas of gravity in the solar system are purely speculative, since we cannot "test and experiment" with them. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle should throw a wrench into quantom theory. If we cannot have a clue about the electron, how in the world can we assume there are distinct energy levels. The evidence of light emission is then purely speculative, since we are not directly manipulating the electron.
These aspects of science are directly comparable to evolution. You argue against evolution since doesn't have "test and experimentation," but that is exactly the issue with quantum theory and other aspects like gravity on the macro-scale.
The point of variable experimentation is to obtain data. We already have data for the solar system or for evolution, through observation and analysis. Science is about testable hypotheses, not adhereing to a specific dogma of data collection. I don't know where you get the idea that data collection must involve the manipulation of variables. Evolution predicts X, Y, Z. Well, we can go to the fossil record, genomes, current species analysis, and well, this all supports predictions X, Y, Z.
The problem others have though, if evolution is false, then what hypothesis does the data fit?
Such as?
Again, that's assuming a high frequncy of preservation within the fossil record.
The usage of "transitionary fossils" always ends up being butchered by people when they challenge it. A scientist may find that organism B is "transitionary" to organisms A and C. The only problem is that some people will demand "Well, what is transitionary to A and B?" This logic, though, completely ignores the initial statement that B is "transitionary" to A and C. Its funny sometimes, if one takes a step back from the evolutionary tree and look at it as a whole, its incredibly surprising how well united the species are.
azazyel
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2000
- 5,872
- 1
- 81
abj13 are you actually a biologist? Didn't read through your entire last post but I recognized a lot of what you were talking about from some of my current reading, Darwin's Black Box. Not the most fun reading but I was curious about the other side of the coin. He has said a lot to the same things you have but when he tries to debunk Darwin it really doesn't seem like he is making that great of a case.
The key is functional new information, not simply random mistakes that provide no functional benefit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter