"So what? The theory of eovlution does not require the existence of cells. It requires heritability, variability, and natural selection.
By the way, are you going to acknowledge you misrepresented that webpage?"
"misrepresented" is a little harsh, and I thought you were one of the nicer evos. I'm still waiting for all of the many evos that attacked me, called me names, ATTEMPTED to put me down, etc. for saying that the body has TRILLIONS of cells to admit that I was correct. Darwin convinced scientists of evolution based on the antiquated information that the body only had one cell, so it IS important.
ALSO, the core of evolution is that one species can become an entirely different species.
What got me to first delve into the fact that there has been no proof that one species can become an entirely different species is when I read it in a book by Judge Bork. Judge Bork is not someone who is devoting his life to the ID theory, but wrote a book on a number of things covering culture, the Constitution, etc. He only devoted one or two pages to his "there is NO PROOF that one species can become another species" view out of his entire book, hardly a person who is devoting his life to ID, so probably at one time quite open-minded about the evo theory.
I'd say he is one of the smartest, well educated, well-informed persons in this country, so his view should be respected, even for those who don't agree with him.
Evo requires going across the species line, not developing variations within it.
I didn't say you deliberately misrepresented it. Being wrong is bad enough; your motives are secondary.
Darwin convinced scientists of evolution based on the antiquated information that the body only had one cell, so it IS important.
If you can't speak for speaking nonsense, maybe you should realize that?
I'd say he is one of the smartest, well educated, well-informed persons in this country, so his view should be respected, even for those who don't agree with him.
I like Judge Bork. I heard him speak about 10 years ago, and it was one of the wittiest, funniest speeches I've ever heard. Even the liberals in the audience were having a tough time holding it in.
That being said, his opinion on biology is probably less valuable than my opinion on Constitutional Law, because I can recite most of the Constitution from memory, and I doubt he's ever cracked a biology text. I'm not saying laypeople shouldn't have an opinion on biology. But what is it about biology, or them, that makes them think their opinion is worth anything, if they don't know any biology?