On 5/19/2010 11:22 AM, Kris Sisk wrote: > I ... believe in intelligent design > Which is fine, and I have no problem with that belief as long as you accept it is not science. It is not since because one can not apply scientific principals to your belief. One can not create an experiment to test it. One can not create a falsifiable hypothesis for the belief. Thus teaching an idea in a science class that one can not apply science to is premature at best. > ... > > I've never seen a plausible argument against irreducible complexity. Even if > the parts of the cellular mechanisms evolved in other parts of the cell they > would still need to come together in a single generation, which would be a > much larger jump than natural selection allows for. If there's another > arugment against it I've never seen it. It seems to me that the argument has > been dismissed by the scientific community at large based solely on who > presented it without being given a chance to stand on it's own merits. That's > bad science. >
Have you seen any of the new ideas concerning how fast changes might occur during times of stress. I don't know the exact and correct terms off the top of my head, but it involves other information in cells then just DNA. But this external cellular features can have a dramatic affect on the DNA of an organism, even inside of a single living organsim. Turning off some DNA turning on Other parts and suddenly something works completely differently. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:319060 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
