Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Challenge to Evolutionists

Pages: (21) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:16    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) I was looking for something that would make the animal more physically selectable because of fitness, not more attractive to the opposite sex. ??? -------------- 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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:17    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:12) Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,14:38) Interesting, Supersport. Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions? Why or why not? I don't know about a backbone, but amazing things can be accomplished during development. So I'll mark that down as a yes.  We'll be wanting to see it for ourselves, of course.  Is November 6th good for you?  I can be there for an eyewitness account of you growing a backbone through mental process alone.  I can't wait. Or, you could just answer the question. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:19    So, when you are pointed to EXACTLY what you asked for, it turns out that you didn't ask for that in the first place? Nice. Anyway, you still miss the point.  You may see the point if you'll take 30 seconds out of your day and define "fitness" for us. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:21    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this Beware, all ye who enter here. -------------- 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

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:24    Well, that's not strictly a "morphological addition to an existing body part", but I have an example in the top of my head: some species of aphids acquired a venom that helps them defend their colonies against predators. The gene duplication responsible for this has been identified. Keep in mind that all aphids belong to the same "kind", unless there were thousands of them aboard the arch.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:24    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:21) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this Beware, all ye who enter here. What?  Only 100 citations? I'm sure you've read all of these, supersport, and deemed them unacceptable? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:25    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified. what's your explanation then? What's next on the list of options? Or is your view a "science stopper"? What next SuperSport? -------------- 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

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:28    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified. The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book. And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you? EDIT: why don't you go finding answers yourself? Go read a book, get a subscription to Nature or Science. There are even several free, top-level journals out there: PLoS Biology, BMC journals (Journal of Biology in particular) and many articles in PNAS are open to non-subscribers. Do you homework.

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:29    "Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".   How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you think does this sensing? Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes?

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:30    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified. The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book. And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you? show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:32    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29) "Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".   How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you think does this sensing? Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes? What about eggs then? hOW come they be all different colours like? -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:32    I don't happen to have the book right now; it is on extended loan. Sorry, perhaps FtK, who noted your work approvingly over on her blog, can loan you her copy. I suspect that it is still in the original shrink-wrap... As for this statement     Quote I was looking for something that would make the animal more physically selectable because of fitness, not more attractive to the opposite sex.  Attractiveness is a subjective thing. It definitely makes the case that you are talking out your ass. Go look up "fitness" in the evolutionary sense. Here are some page numbers p. 639 in Klug and Cummings, Concepts in Genetics, 7th edition p. 555 in Griffiths, Gelbart, Miller & Lewontin, Modern Genetic Analysis, 1st edition whereupon you will learn that Drosophila fitness is intimately related to selection and "attractiveness". Unfortunately, even though you thought you might have to shift that goalpost, you really didn't move it an inch. Now, about those mental processes generating life instantly - I'm really anxious to hear about that. thanks again in advance for continuing to ignore this question. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:37    Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,15:24) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:21)   Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this Beware, all ye who enter here. What?  Only 100 citations? I'm sure you've read all of these, supersport, and deemed them unacceptable? no you're going to have to narrow it down and highlight the pertinent words.  I'm not going on a wild goose chase.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:37    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:30) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified. The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book. And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you? show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this. I'm sure you can do that yourself. I'm curious too: your think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:37    Would you be interested in some sort of wager SuperSport? Like to bet do ya? Or does your particular sect consider that to be forbidden? Not from me, I mean, I don't know nuffink me. Me no scientist. I could paypal a bit of something somebody's way, if it came to it for 1/2 a bottle of something to be sent. You know. And anyway I'm not a betting man. Can't calculate the odds y'see. Just wondering out loud is all...Putting the idea out there....Somebody takes it, runs with it...Well, not my lookout see? -------------- 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

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:38    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:32) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29) "Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".   How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you think does this sensing? Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes? What about eggs then? hOW come they be all different colours like? show me the mutation....why would the darker (or lighter) be any more selectable than the other?

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:39    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29) "Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".   How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you .think does this sensing? Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes? Crikey, you are a serious basket case. Does it make sense to you that mental processes can be involved, but are NOT SUFFICIENT to make things happen? Does it make sense to you that color-changing in fish involves neurological processing, but is NOT sufficient? Do you think that the mind, by itself (i.e. without the fish, or its chromatophores, or the rest of its "materialistic" body) can change color? You claimed that mental processes generate life instantly. Where is the evidence for that? Put up, or shut up. Thanks again for ignoring this question. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:40    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:37) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:30) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28)   Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified. The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book. And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you? show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this. I'm sure you can do that yourself. I'm curious too: your think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation? the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism.

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:42    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,15:39) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29) "Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".   How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you .think does this sensing? Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes? Crikey, you are a serious basket case. Does it make sense to you that mental processes can be involved, but are NOT SUFFICIENT to make things happen? Does it make sense to you that color-changing in fish involves neurological processing, but is NOT sufficient? Do you think that the mind, by itself (i.e. without the fish, or its chromatophores, or the rest of its "materialistic" body) can change color? You claimed that mental processes generate life instantly. Where is the evidence for that? Put up, or shut up. Thanks again for ignoring this question. blah blah blah...is there a point in there?  Either morphological variation arises accidentally by way of mutations or it doesn't.   You cannot prove that it does, yet I can prove that it doesn't -- which I just did.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:48    You PROVED it?  Really?  PROVED it?  With a meticulous set of data and a cast-iron logical process?  Really?  Or did you just claim a bunch of things?  Hmmm? As to this: Quote the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism. I beg to differ.  I believe the question was: Quote Do you think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation? I can check again--I've got the requisite 2 seconds--but I know I'm right. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:48    by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts. edit: here's my challenge again: I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.   Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:50    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:40) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:37)   Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:30)   Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28)     Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14) edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified. The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book. And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you? show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this. I'm sure you can do that yourself. I'm curious too: your think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation? the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism. A male fly with this pigmentation can court females. Another question: do you think that pigmentation never influences reproductive success?

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:51    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48) by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts. edit: here's my challenge again: I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.   Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE. Hey now!  Don't go blaming jeannot for your goalpost moving.  Do your own work! -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:53    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48) by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts. edit: here's my challenge again: I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.   Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE. Could you give us an example? For instance, what are the "new parts" between chimp and human, that make us, according to you, so much different?

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:58    turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all: http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php "Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:00    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58) turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all: http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php "Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)." What is it that you don't understand in this report?

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:00    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:53) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48) by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts. edit: here's my challenge again: I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.   Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE. Could you give us an example? For instance, what are the "new parts" between chimp and human, that make us, according to you, so much different? well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body...pick one and show me how a mutation can form one or part of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anatomical_topics

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:01    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58) turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all: http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php "Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)." What it is that you don't understand in this report? it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype: "The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes."

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:02    souperspork phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.   buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help. SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting... -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:04    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 18 2007,16:02) souperspork phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.   buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help. SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting... well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

Pages: (21) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard