> Bernard has already addressed this -- there is the fourth choice which you are not
> considering. As he writes: "BOTH chance and necessity (natural selection) are
> essential.
I am sorry, but this is a big cop out! It is just like saying a photon and electron are BOTH a particle and a wave! Many scientific minded people will
not accept this dualistic approach to reality! It is almost like carrying your garbage around with you everywhere you go and never fully processing it or letting go of it!!!
> > I'm constantly suprised by people who
> > automatically assume that if you question the
> > Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian view of how evolution
> > works, you are in effect denying the existence of evolution.
>
> Maybe that's because the questions suggest the questioner has missed something
> important.
That is only speculation on your part!
> > BTW, if a person does not believe a thing to be
> > proven, it does not necessarily follow that they
> > therefore do not understand or are ignorant of the
> > evidence for that thing.
>
> Unless the thing has been proven and the person who does not believe is unaware
> (ignorant) of that fact.
Again, this is only speculation on your part! Like I said many times before here, the word 'evolution' itself, regardless of any proof and/or facts of any kind, is still a very misleading word to many people
because it does not fully and clearly describe the degenerative aspects of every fife cycle and the clear evidence that exists that life degenerates after growth towards death ...
Also, if one just describes life to be for replication or reproduction and then death, then one is still missing many of the higher end energy processing processes involved! So, DE continues to be
wrong in many of these things...
> > Evidence of any kind is always open to different
> > interpretations, and the consensus is not always correct.
>
> ID pronponents do not offer scientific interpretations that better explain the
> evidence. They offer non-science or junk science.
That, of course is only your (and some others!) subjective personal reality perspective! Like I said before, junk for some is art for others. Just because ID suggests that there is more and more evidence now (from the same evidence that all others look!) that DNA is programmed and/or designed does
not make it junk science! As a matter of fact most already refer to DNA's genes as "code" and every one already knows that most code requires a programmer! That, of course, is the most generic explanation of it all...
> The jury is not out; there is a verdict. These examples you mention are identical
> to the question of the bacteria's tail in the New Yorker article in the link.
> Read that again. Then, read up on natural selection.
Well, natural selection has never been fully defined as of yet and that is the core problem!!!
-wirelessguru1
