Replies

As I have pointed out (and these threads are a wonderful proof of it) many scientists are afraid of the thugs of evolution - just look at the links in the article to see why. So I consider their contrary opinions totally irrelevant (unless supported by facts) when the evidence itself is overwhenlmingly against evolution.

You see, Gummy, any opinion put forth by anyone supporting evolution, especially Nobel Prize winning biologists, carries no weight because an alternate position has already been assumed to be true. Evidence against said alternate position is similarly dismissed. After all, if the evidence does not support the preconceived conclusion, obviously the evidence is a mistake or a lie.

Even a Nobel Lecture by well-respected biologist who refers to the process of evolution as the accepted theory for genetic diversity (specifically with regards to the insertion of virus-related genes into the germ line of various animal species) are but the wailings of a madman who stands on his steet corner, barking at pigeons, and asking the newspaper boy if his socks will be friendly tomorrow.

Other Nobel lectures (particularly the bits on page 20 regarding future research) or the first paragraph on page 3 of this one over here can be similarly dismissed. After all, Nobel Prize winners in physiology or medicine cannot be expected to understand the implications of their own words.

Of course, both of those last ones were from 1995, so maybe that was just the year in which the selection process was rigged.

Even a Nobel Lecture by well-respected biologist

We are not talking lectures, we are talking discoveries. Post here any discovery which you think supports evolution and why and we will discuss it. Seems you folk can only appeal to authority and are unwilling to discuss the real scientific facts.