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: Greg or e who wrote (36810)	5/31/2013 1:37:56 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

What George Church, Famed Harvard Geneticist, Says About Darwin's Doubt and Intelligent Design David Klinghoffer May 31, 2013 6:18 AM Harvard geneticist George Church has said some fascinating things on the theme of intelligent design. He's particularly interested, if I'm summarizing correctly, in the idea of biology as engineering. So is Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Which is why, having read some of his published remarks, we sent Dr. Church an advance copy of Darwin's Doubt asking that he look in particular at the middle section of the book, "How to Build an Animal," which deals precisely with the massive engineering problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory. We were grateful to get back this gracious comment, which appears on the dust jacket. Stephen Meyer's new book Darwin's Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization -- bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog -- and bridges to span evolutionary gaps. While very gratifying to have his warm wishes, it's not shocking that Dr. Church would share them with us. Back in 2008 he participated in a recorded seminar, " Life: What a Concept!," with Freeman Dyson, Robert Shapiro, J. Craig Venter, and others. He said: As a scientific discipline, many people have casually dismissed Intelligent Design without carefully defining what they mean by intelligence or what they mean by design. Science and math have long histories of proving things, and not just accepting intuition -- Fermat's last theorem was not proven until it was proven. And I think we're in a similar space with intelligent design. Again: The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure -- it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be? Is he an advocate of intelligent design like Stephen Meyer? No. Is he a very interesting, independent thinker, who has made some suggestive comments relevant to ID, about which one would like to have the opportunity to question him much further? Yes. Ponder that while you go over now to DarwinsDoubt.com to pre-order your own copy of Dr. Meyer's book and receive the steep discount we've been talking about. That offer ends at close of business today, and will not come back. evolutionnews.org

To: Greg or e who wrote (36810)	5/31/2013 7:15:35 PM
From: 2MAR$	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Cambrian explosion suggests that all just happened by a God breathing on the earth & molding clay into flesh? And why stop there, since we also believe that there have been several mass extinction events in Earth's history as well but life somehow found a way. What effect the Piltdown Man hoax had compared to all the later studies & advances in genetic/dna anaylsis plus the fossils accumulated is completely negligible, its not even relevent to the reality of what has been discovered. Darwin knew nothing about the mass extinctions either, but everything we know of post Cambrian is rock solid , does not even compare with religious superstition needing evidence, there's massive evidence & no doubt by anyone whos close to the subject.

To: Greg or e who wrote (36810)	5/31/2013 7:29:29 PM
From: 2MAR$	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

So theres no problem at all with the theory of evolution being real & the studies continue regardless of throwbacks like you posting the same lame dated articles & whinings to the contrary. We hadn't mapped the human genome till just recently either, if you want to cite a source that blows your dated bullshit out of the water is Francis Collins himself . But a moron will always be a moron & just a few decades behind the curve, here's one of the current leading scientists in the field (& devout Christian), puts all your baby bullshit to rest, including Michael Behe's irreducible complexity. Try to stay some where within a few decades of the present, Collins here tells you that latest findings in molecular biology complete the picture of how all this happened in incremential evoltionary stages, no magic wands of any kind . A good Christian that knows when not to lie & bullshit: