Re: Why the theory of evolution is ontologically impossible


Mark James wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 19:27:36 -0800, "Marc" <mbuhler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


NashtOn wrote:

....... snip

You and the other evo-cheerleaders see *nothing*.
You're supposing, postulating and guessing.

Wake me up when you actually come up with:

1. Experimental data via direct observation.
2. How the ToE has benefited humanity.

........... snip sig....


Before you reply to any post in any thread about evolution,
read the article in the current issue of PLoS-Biology and
since it is real science, I'll let you cheat by reading the
NY Times article (and other papers now!) and the synopsis
article from the journal rather than the actual article itself
(since it will be *way* over your educational limits).

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=index-html&issn=1545-7885

Now, the challenge is there - read this, then comment
or just shut the hell up. The synposis link is on the left side.

The article is called "A Map of Recent Positive Selection in
the Human Genome" and you *will* find it interesting even
if somehow you are not willing to accept it as true.

Also - you were given a link on the science web site about
benefits of evolution - I gather as you are still asking your
question you have ignored *that*, too - so please go find that
article and tell me if you have a problem with it or not.

It is in a recent reply I have made to a post of yours.

(signed) marc


.
I've not read it all, though I have printed it for tonight's bedtime
reading. From the bits I have read it looks like some very good
research.

--
Bob.

Interesting read. I also noted the following article on the same site
regarding Gorillas' tool use...

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380


If NatshOn would just read _either_ article, it would be amazing.

(signed) marc

..

.

Relevant Pages
Loading