Joined: Jan. 2008
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,12:30)|
|A lot of times I get the argument see, no-body says there is something wrong with these "legitimate studies" so the logical conclusions are (1) they are legitimate and (2) they are so good that no one can disprove them.|
Or they are just completely irrelevant.
Bio-Complexity published three articles in 2010. Each of these articles has been cited twice according to Google Scholar.
Gauger was cited by a blog post and in an announcement.
Montanez article was cited by Ewert, who's second author of the Montanez article, and by Robert Sheldon, who posts occasionally at Uncommon Descent.
Axe's paper was cited by Sanford in The Journal of Creation and in an "article" at viXra.org, which "has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate." LOL.
If any of these articles were contributing anything worthwhile, they would've been cited outside of their little circlejerk. As it is, they aren't cited at all. That doesn't mean nobody can "disprove" them, it means there is no substance to be disproved.
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner