In Closing

[Glenn]

"All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Twelve years later and it's worse than we thought.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2022 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think."
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
>
>Twelve years later and it's worse than we thought.

Evolution is wrong and God exists because of a glitchy computer
program? Not sure how you and the author don't see the problem with
that.

Also, mother hens and humans provide more to their offsprings'
development than genetic information. The effects of poor
developmental environments diminish in the second and third
generations. The author's speculations would be better supported if
he described "studies" of epigenetic effects involving deprived
roosters.

Also, the well-recognized phenomenon of horizontal gene transfer
doesn't upend biology. To the contrary, HGT of viral genes provide
genetic markers that help to map lineages and clades.

Finally, the author asserts IDiot PRATTs and word games. Your cited
article pushes mindless noise that the pseudoskeptic choir love to
sing.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The article is embarrassingly bad, typical of what half-informed
journalists write about science. It is attacking a caricaturure
(natural selection is all there is) of what biologists actually think.
The author would benefit from studying Larry Moran's blog for a year or
two.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Glenn]

How about what biologists actually CLAIM?

Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself."

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/

Support that, Athel. Provide the convincing empirical evidence that this hypothetical molecule was formed by accident, and that it could replicate itself.

[jillery]

Yeppers. Or even just a few chapters from Sean M. Carroll's "The Big
Picture", which describes a remarkably well-informed understanding of
biological evolution from a physicist.

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:17:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Once again the pseudoskeptic clamors for "convincing empirical
evidence" for reasonable conjecture, while championing mind-numbing
made-up facts.

[Glenn]

That may numb some minds. Yours is simply frozen.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:06:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2022 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >"All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think."
> >
> >https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
> >
> >Twelve years later and it's worse than we thought.
> Evolution is wrong and God exists because of a glitchy computer
> program? Not sure how you and the author don't see the problem with
> that.
>

The author likely hasn't seen that, since you just wrote it, and it is unlikely he reads talk.origins, or if he does, pay any attention to your trolling idiocy.

[RonO]

The Discovery Institute implemented the bait and switch scam over 20
years ago, and IDiocy hasn't progressed at all since.

Why not demonstrate that Luskin isn't lying about what ID is and how it
should be defended?

Ron Okimoto