[MRMEAN]

Tribune requires free registration

[bikepacker67]

Maybe I misunderstand ID.

To me it's not "magic" that can't be explained, but rather elegant rules and laws of chemistry and energy (that BTW, Quantum Physicists end up devolving into what sounds alot like magic when trying to explain the TRULY inner workings).

Nonlocality Anyone?

[calex59]

Darwin was wrong, this is proven by the lack of transitional species. However, there are other theories of evolution, such as neo-darwinism and punctuated equilibrium that could account for the lack of trans species(although they both have problems also, problems so far unsolved).

Every month some evo comes out with "new" evidence that "proves" evolution, and the truth is, they haven't.

Now, before I am jumped on, I would like to say, I am NOT a Christian, I am not an IDer or a creationists. What I am is a seeker of truth and the theory of evolution is too full of lies to be the truth. That is how I see it.

Let the flaming begin!

[SamuraiScot]

Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish COULD HAVE MAYBE evolved the crucial ability to clot blood.

Evolution without God is a religious belief without evidence to back it up.

At least Christians have the Gospel accounts to support their view.

There are billions of recorded examples of living things being produced by other living things. I have never read a report that in recorded history, life has been produced by non-living matter. A rubbish heap can give you little rubbish heaps, if you have a shovel. But they can't do it without your help.

The unGod people (such as this editorialist disguised as a reporter) would seem to be replicating an idea from the ash-heap of the history of science: spontaneous generation.

[weegee]

Are there any evolutionists who believe that God exists but that He played no role in creation/evolution?

[PatrickHenry]

I was looking to post this one myself, but all the newspapers that carried it were on the "must excerpt" list. Now you've gone and done it. It's a good article, and I hope others read it.

Here's a website where the entire article can be read without registration: Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists.

I'm cranking up the ping machine.

[gleeaikin]

I am in the middle of reading "Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated", by Steve Jones, 2000. It compares Darwin's writings, adding in the many exciting finds with current molecular biology and the unraveling of the genome of many species including man, and our recently acquired knowledge of RNA and DNA. Here are some quotes to ponder:

"A crucial hint of how wide the confederacy of life might spread comes from bacteria themselves. E. coli, common in our own guts, has had its entire complement of bases laid out. Great segments of its DNA speak a language different from the rest, give evidence of a deep split in the bacterial family tree. A fifth of that creature's genes come from elsewhere among the bugs."

"The emerging insights into molecular anatomy of life show that, 300,000,000 years ago, gene exchange was universal." [Could this have been because most life was in the water?] "In some senses, species themselves were late arrivals on the evolutionary scene for, in thos distant days, free trade ruled, with genes leaping from one form of life to another. All genomes of all higher cretures are a patchwork of parts that started in different places and retain traces of a bastard ancestry from the earliest times. Th structure of a thousand genes is known from a wide enough range of beings, from baceria to yeast and worms, to trace the remote past. They group not--as simple descent with modification would predict--by those who bear them, but by what they do. One set--whether it finds itself in plants, animals or bacteria--organizes, operates and edits the information kept in DNA. The other does household tasks such as repair, food preparation, waste disposal and moving around. The information branch resembles the genes of simple bacteria that pump out methane,while the rest of the genetic material has been assembled from many places. The housekeeping genes have, it seems, been hopping about almost since life began, while the data processors are less mobile (perhaps because they have to communicate with others)....

"Life is much more fluid than it once seemed....Trees of genes look much the same. They show that not only is the cell a coalition, but the genes themselves descend from separate founders and and have shuffled around in a way unimagined before the advent of molecular biology."

"The structure of DNA raises problems so grave for the theory of evolution that is hard to reflect on them without being staggered. Genetics shows how Darwinism can explain what seems at first inexplicable. It is also a useful reminder that a science without difficulties is not a science at all."

The author also points out how Einstein's work altered Newton's early work. We should no more belittle Darwin because of modern molecular biology, than we would look down on Newton because of Einstein's discoveries.

[microgood]

In the last several years Miller and other evolutionary researchers noticed that the flagellum resembled a needle-like structure that bacteria such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it's missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work.


The system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. It also suggests how the marvelously complex flagellum could have evolved from simpler forms.

It would make it useless as a flagellum. And to postulate that Oh, it could have been something else and then turned into a flagellum is among the weakest arguments for anything I have ever heard of. So before our eyes evolved into eyes, they were doorstops first, and then became eyes. With that kind of leeway, I am sure you could postulate that the stork brought babies while the sexual organs were evolving.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.

Negative predictions should be made carefully.

[LiteKeeper]

intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories

That is just so wrong. Can't the press ever get it right?

[metmom]

In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing.

I'd still like to see what scientists use to support their contention that the universe WASN'T intelligently designed. They sure seem pretty certain it was that way; there must be some reason for starting with that basic premise that there was no intelligent design behind it all. But I know that all I will get is that I need to provide evidence to support my contention that it was designed while they get to make statements and presume they're true until they're DISPROVED. Seems like a double standard to me. You can't test for lack of design either.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish evolved the crucial ability to clot blood.

Isn't God awesome? I love the way He builds stuff like that....

I cannot see the contradiction between Creation and Evolution. I don't see the controversy--both explanations seem entirely true.

[Antoninus]

Another pro-Darwin article in a lame-stream fish-wrap. They really are getting hysterical, aren't they?