Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: SirLinksalot
It's not really a "challenge" to Darwinism, and certainly not to evolution. Just pointing out that sometimes things change rapidly.
2 posted on
02/10/2006 10:16:11 AM PST by
orionblamblam
(A furore Normannorum libra nos, Domine)
To: SirLinksalot
LOL So, it really is just a "theory". Huh. How about that.
3 posted on
02/10/2006 10:20:50 AM PST by
GLDNGUN
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping
![](http://www.boomspeed.com/wallcrawlr/Freedom_to_think.JPG)
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
7 posted on
02/10/2006 10:25:08 AM PST by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: SirLinksalot
Cells dont like change. They have many different proteins that protect them from extreme changes, Schwartz said. With all these different mechanisms that they have, its unlikely that they change willingly over time, as Darwins theory says.The guy's a numbskull. Willingly? Where'd he learn about evolution, a cereal box?
To: SirLinksalot; orionblamblam
"Modern cell biology doesn't support Darwinism."
Say it ain't so. Evolution is settled, pure science and anyone who says otherwise can't possibly be a scientist. If the above statement is not a challenge to Darwinism, then what is it?
9 posted on
02/10/2006 10:28:57 AM PST by
Snowbelt Man
(ideas have consequences)
To: SirLinksalot
What a stupidly written article. Darwin knew nothing about cell biology, mutation, inheritance, and the like. Biochemistry is an invention of the last fifty years.
This article is discussing details of the process, not whether evolution proceeds along Darwinian lines.
10 posted on
02/10/2006 10:30:24 AM PST by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: SirLinksalot
We dont know what the stressors are that cause extinction in animals, Schwartz said. So we need to be much more sensitive about the environment and be aware of local and global events. Its all a domino effect. One small change affects everyone else. Which leads me to wonder how scientists think we got this far on a theory that never put them in charge before. I mean, if survival depends on their own great wisdom and knowledge, how the heck can they buy a theory that brought us where we are today? Aren't they inserting the necessity of a sort of "intelligent design" into our very survival?
12 posted on
02/10/2006 10:33:28 AM PST by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: SirLinksalot
This sounds curiously similar to Stephen J. Gould's "Punctuated Equilibria." Perhaps the difference is in the details.
16 posted on
02/10/2006 10:38:19 AM PST by
FormerLib
(Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
To: SirLinksalot
17 posted on
02/10/2006 10:40:13 AM PST by
VOA
To: SirLinksalot
Just reading the headline I guessed it would be that wack job Dr. Sternglass that wrote it. Wow, there are some real nutty professors at Pitt.
To: SirLinksalot
It seems as if Darwin's theory of evolution is, in itself, evolving
43 posted on
02/10/2006 11:09:33 AM PST by
Old Seadog
(Inside every old person is a young person saying "WTF happened?".)
To: SirLinksalot
How dare this fool disparage the name of Darwin, Glory Be To Him. This isn't science, it is faith baised speculation! Behead the non-believers!
47 posted on
02/10/2006 11:11:12 AM PST by
Dead Dog
To: SirLinksalot
This sounds like the "punctuated equilibrium" that Stephen J. Gould promulgated, because he too saw the many gaps in the fossil record. Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who was the USA'a #1 promoter of evolution, also said that the neo-Darwinian idea of gradual evolution leading to new species is a myth.
48 posted on
02/10/2006 11:12:08 AM PST by
DeweyCA
To: SirLinksalot
Its not like fish developed bony teeth one piece at a time. It happened suddenly.
Hmmm???
Suddenly?
Could it be instantly???
Like in 'intelligently designed" and introduced into a species, instantly?
How about an instant new species?
59 posted on
02/10/2006 11:20:18 AM PST by
adorno
To: SirLinksalot
It seems that those evoloutionists who thought the Dover trial would spell the end of ID/creation are wrong. There seem to be more and more articles coming out that are posing serious threats to the bogus theory of evoloution. The tide is turning, and it is gaining momentunm.
To: SirLinksalot
Nice drivel. I believe Gould already dreamed this one up!
174 posted on
02/10/2006 3:46:12 PM PST by
Doc Savage
(Of all these things you can be sure, only love...will endure.......................)
To: From many - one.
Check back to see how thread evolves.
To: SirLinksalot
One of the rare and very brave Darwinists willing to admit openly that the theory has serious problems. He is banging the "punctuated equilibrium" drum and suggesting a novel solution. Whether he is right or wrong, he is challenging Darwin's mystical magical mullahs of materialism, and he deserves applause for trying to pry open the medieval "spontaneous generation" mind crypts perched atop their necks.
My prediction is, they'll tar and feather him as a witch and run him out of academia on a rail.
To: SirLinksalot
191 posted on
02/10/2006 7:36:18 PM PST by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America)
To: SirLinksalot
"Modern cell biology doesnt support Darwinism."
More supporting evidence why evolution is a fake, phony and fraudulent theory.
Pseudo science.
196 posted on
02/10/2006 7:59:08 PM PST by
TheBrotherhood
(Randomness does not create intelligence; only intelligence creates intelligence.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson