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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (154851)	2/15/2009 5:23:28 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Spontaneous Generation Redux For more than one hundred years biologists have taught that spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter (believed in by the ancient Romans) was disproved by the work of Redi, Spallanzani, and ultimately Pasteur in 1859. This work was so conclusive, that biology codified the "Law of Biogenesis," which states that life only comes from previously existing life. However, in recent decades, it is amazing to consider that "modern" abiogenesis protagonists have actually revived spontaneous generation (in a biochemical form) in the minds of many biologists! This revived "creation myth" is tenaciously (even irrationally) adhered to, despite the lack of a convincing body of evidence to show that abiogenesis did happen --and not even with a coherent schema of biochemical mechanisms and pathways to theorize and demonstrate how such spontaneous generation could have a reasonable probability of occurring. " geocities.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (154851)	2/15/2009 6:20:35 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

Dawkins argues the origin and development of life is a product of UNGUIDED natural forces." I think those are your words, not his.. Are you suggesting he doesn't believe what I said? If I had quoted him exactly, I would have said "unguided Darwinian processes." is this what he did???? No, his program was programmed in his own words as follows: The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. By having a target, his program is an example of intelligent design. Something he opposes. Stupid of him to use such an example.