MikeBGene:
>Back on Jan 30, I posted a long reply to Chris exploring this, as even
>he has suggested ways to distinguish the two. Of course, this cannot
>be done in science because that would violate its own ground rules.
>
>Look at it this way. If you think you cannot distinguish a non-intelligent
>cause from an intelligent cause, on what basis do you attribute things
>to non-intelligent causes? Clearly, it must be an issue of pure
>metaphysics.
As delightful as I find Chris I have a bit of trouble wading through his
posts. Much of what he talks about (espcially when he gets going on
philosophy) zooms over my head.
Nevertheless, you slid off the question again. Science is supposed to
recognize intelligent design and be able to distinguish it from evolution.
You, Johnson, et al. have harped on this continually. Those mean ole
scientists won't do that! Bias! Atheism! What I want to know, is HOW. You
seem to think there's a way.
> You enlighten me about the evidence behind the belief that
>it evolved by changing gene frequencies and then I'll see if there are
>some features that are better attributed to ID. It's time to practice what
>you preach and persuade. You have to persuade using evidence and
>logic. I haven't seen much of that.
Sorry, I'm no molecular biologist. I did a search on Medline
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed ) for "ubiquitin,
evolution of" and it gave me 102 documents including this one:
"Structure and evolution of genes encoding polyubiquitin in marine
sponges." Gamulin V, Lukic L, Department of Molecular Genetics, Rudjer
Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 09 2000 - 10:56:17 EST