> Indeed. While I haven't yet read Gilbert, and must therefore rely on
> (shudder! *secondary* sources <g>), I find it interesting
> that Darwinists are already claiming this as "evolution". I haven't
> had a chance to read Gilbert yet, so what I say is only from (shock!
> horror!! secondary sources <g>) but even so, it sounds nothing like
> "evolution" to me. Johnson points out that this evidence from
> developmental biology actually undermines the Darwinian claim that
> homology is the result of common ancestry:
Hello Stephen,
If one does not deal with the primary literature, then do you think it is
academically congruent for that individual to cite
extensively (e.g. about one-half a post) the works of another who does not
even have undergraduate training in the discipline under discussion?
Let me put it another way. If you had a painful tooth, would you go to a
lawyer?
Blessings,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------