I'd think by now you'd realize this paper doen't have any new or original content.
[[I’d think by now you’d realize this paper doen’t have any new or original content.]]
Really? Because I’ve certainly not seen a single person come forward and poke any holes in it other than to point our a scant few minor mistatements that have absolutely nothign to do with hte entral themes offered.
Tell me JS- what ‘isn’t new or original’? And what has been provided scientifically to refute the claims made? I’ve certainly seen nothing provided here- infact, what I see is an evolving importance emergingthe deeper we look biologically.
Simply wavign your arms and dismissing somethign isn’t a valid coutner argument- I’d have htought you’d have realized that by now?
[[I’d think by now you’d realize this paper doen’t have any new or original content.]]
nothing new? Hmmm- That just isn’t true- previously, ID had only a few examples of IC, but htis paper comes along making a bold claim that ALL of life shows IC at every level- and it provides exampels of why, which to hte best of my knowledge, hasn’t been refuted yet, and you say ‘nothign new or original has been presented’? Previously, peopel MAY have htoguht IC existed in all levels, however, their best assumptions were that htere was no direct evidence- this paper comes along and shows a direct evidentiary hypothesis, and IF it turns out to be supported by futher sicentific evidence, then it sure as heck is a new and original hypothesis that will have evidnece to uspport it- whereas before, we just had assumptions without any explanations really- This paper breaks ground that previously hadn’t been broken IF what is being claiemd proves itself reasonable, which, apparently it is, because I’m certainly not seeign anyone shoot it down with anythign but generalized, unsupported claims.