oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:30) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26) | |
Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:
http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf
What are you're thoughts on this?
Thanks Marty |
Write this down.
We don't know everything there is to know about evolution.
There are many many unanswered questions.
However for all the millions of questions that have been answered not a single answer has turned out to be "intelligent design".
So, while a good scientist will not, cannot, rule out "ID" as a possible explanation as yet there is no actual evidence for ID at all and so no reason to consider it as an explanation for anything at all.
Sure, some people believe that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life we see around us, but they are unable to provide an alternative with *any* explanatory power whatsoever.
So the question asked in that paper is:
Quote | How does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype? |
Yet it seems that ID does not even get close to a look in Quote | The evidence for evolution itself is robust as it comes from the three independent lines that each tells the same story: history (fossil record and isotope dating), morphology (taxonomic relationship and comparative embryology in living organisms - evolutionary change starts off as developmental change ) and molecular sequence relationships. |
So whatever the evolutionary synthesis becomes in order to be able to answer these questions satisfactory I'd not bet that ID would have anything to do with it, no matter how long you wait.
Does that help?
-------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings
|