"...there is (no) single, crystal-clar example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information...many mutations...have been described as "beneficial," but most of these..have not created information, but rather have destroyed it." - "Genetic Entrophy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr J Sanford.
Hi, Austin.
For some reason today, you seem to be hung up on how flagellum are depicted by some . Is this in response to my quote?
Many have issues with the "other side" of the debate; one would be with Dawkins and his very contrived, "Me-thinks-it-is-like-a-weasel" program. There is no need to bore you with the details which you'd be well aware of and prepared to overlook ...Suffice it to say that in this instance, Dawkins himself was the "designer."
Speaking for myself, I'm less likely to attribute credibility to Darwinian evolutionary theory since it was relegated to just another stifling form of goverment mandated, rote learning. It's application in modern society symbolizes an infringement upon an important aspsect of humanity's basic Freedom.
Unfortunately, your posts here typify what the scientific community at TOE view as a convincing win ("Smells Like 'Team' Spirit" - much self-congratulations and back-slapping). But then in this case, it IS mandated - no discussion or debtate necessary ...
__________________ "What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime." Hans Blumenberg
"Perfection is not when there is more to add, but when there is no more to take away." Antoine De Saint-Eupery
Disclaimer: *The above statements are my opinion only and shouldn't be taken as factual. Read at your own risk*
No, not in response to your quote, Leskey, just something in my e-mail relating to Intelligent Design. The flagellum is sort of a last stand for design.
I never overlook; I delve into many varieties of TOEs, such as God is all good, possible holographic nature of things, evolution, and more. Dawkins selfish gene wasn't pretty, but I got something out of it.
Behe, not achieving rote teaching of God in public schools, tried to get irreducible complexity rotely taught also, in the Dover case, but schools wished to present what they thought was more factual, fossils and such; no need to teach invisibles like Krishna and reincarnation or numerous other suppositions.
The amount of people on a team itself doesn't decide anything final.
My sincere apologies for misinterpreting your motives, Austin.
About factual fossils: can you perhaps post an example where a series of fossils of a specific species evidences the fact of evolution?
__________________ "What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime." Hans Blumenberg
"Perfection is not when there is more to add, but when there is no more to take away." Antoine De Saint-Eupery
Disclaimer: *The above statements are my opinion only and shouldn't be taken as factual. Read at your own risk*
That chart Graybeard (and all the info behind it: probably could find in wikipedia) was a good show of evolution for humans.
I first learned about natural selection in high school biology; it was impressive even then, with pictures of fossils, examples of selection and stuff like that.
Now that the genome is decoded, we'll be able to see how and when we diverged from common ancestors, if some of that is still in there as 'junk'.
It's just that I see real evidence as opposed to "Maybes" . Once, some Jehovah Witnesses came over and said a dog can't turn into a cat. You can see the level at which they approach and dismiss evolution. Similar with the pre emergent complexity idea of Intelligent Design, which is really the same thing.
Now the Pope says it's OK to believe in evolution, for that was God's method. In other words, even religions can't agree on what they make up.
"Now the genome is decoded, we'll be able to see how and when we diverged from common ancestors..."
Or not...they're still working on it...
"...even religions can't agree on what they make up."
*grin* Nothing much that Mankind "makes up" can be unaminously agreed upon.
LOL! I just see real evidence as opposed to "maybes," too...Guess I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question...
__________________ "What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime." Hans Blumenberg
"Perfection is not when there is more to add, but when there is no more to take away." Antoine De Saint-Eupery
Disclaimer: *The above statements are my opinion only and shouldn't be taken as factual. Read at your own risk*
Sorry, I forgot to post this reply earlier...ask for one example, get a website...
__________________ "What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime." Hans Blumenberg
"Perfection is not when there is more to add, but when there is no more to take away." Antoine De Saint-Eupery
Disclaimer: *The above statements are my opinion only and shouldn't be taken as factual. Read at your own risk*
There's no competition between the two because they have to be one and the same, if your God is everything. We know about science and it's existence but the jury is still out on God. If your God is an old white hair bearded man with sandals on sitting on his throne in heaven in the sky somewhere, then maybe there is some competition between the two. If your God thinks like man and he's jealous like the "good" book says, he should have gotten rid of science, I can't say he has not tried. Back in the so called "Dark Ages",(not to say we are out of them) when scientist where making important discoveries, religion held them back. Condemning these men to prison and sometimes death but scientist had two things on there side, truth and proof. A famous religious saying " the truth will set you free". I believe God is being revealed through science.
For some reason today, you seem to be hung up on how flagellum are depicted by some . Is this in response to my quote?
Many have issues with the "other side" of the debate; one would be with Dawkins and his very contrived, "Me-thinks-it-is-like-a-weasel" program. There is no need to bore you with the details which you'd be well aware of and prepared to overlook ...Suffice it to say that in this instance, Dawkins himself was the "designer."
Speaking for myself, I'm less likely to attribute credibility to Darwinian evolutionary theory since it was relegated to just another stifling form of goverment mandated, rote learning. It's application in modern society symbolizes an infringement upon an important aspsect of humanity's basic Freedom.
Unfortunately, your posts here typify what the scientific community at TOE view as a convincing win ("Smells Like 'Team' Spirit" - much self-congratulations and back-slapping). But then in this case, it IS mandated - no discussion or debtate necessary ...
. Is this in response to my quote? 
...Suffice it to say that in this instance, Dawkins himself was the "designer."
...
Linear Mode
