Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2397)	2/12/2009 10:13:01 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<I read the abstract, Once again it seems to place too much emphasis on mutation> 1.) It's a "review article" in the journal 'Science' vs your opinion... enough said. 2.) There is tons of evolutionary (scientific, from jounrnal of evolution, nature, science, cell, whatever) material online... why don't you post some things that show how sexual shuffling is thought more important in evolution than mutation in the scientific community in general?? Should be easy. 3.) I'm more of the neo-lamarkian bent... so to me "mutation" (change in sequence) brings up the question of how and why. So I'm not taking one side or the other, just commenting on the general state of evolutionary thinking. 4.) A simple search of the web including scientific jounals brings up a paltry few allies for your assertion, but here's one... is this what you are using as suupport?? nwcreation.net DAK