|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 1:41:47 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Gluadys, what are you doing? Sadly, DanJ, she appears to be clueless. Good luck with your efforts to break through.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 1:58:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Well, you don't know that. It could just as easily have been copied into the Torah by Moses off of a divinely-inscribed tablet. Then the Babylonians and the whomevers could have copied that. Besides, the Babylonian captivity didn't take place until 600 BC. Moses prepared the Pentateuch (from which we get the book of Genesis) 800 years before hand.
The Enuma Elish predates the Torah by quite a bit.
quote:
Well, it seems that a lot of your arguments are from what we can't know. A weak argument to begin with, but coincidentally we can know the stuff that you're saying we can't know. 1st, if Jesus didn't say that they were parables but the Gospel writers did, then they were parables because the Gospel writers were divinely inspired in their writings.
Maybe you and I are different in that respect. If I heard Jesus start into the story of the Prodigal Son I would recognize it as a parable right off.
quote:
I'll repeat myself again. The empirical evidence is just as easily interpreted as that of a young earth.
Stars a billion light years away are a billion light years away. There is no getting around it.
So I guess if the map showed a mountain range where none existed then it is the fault of the Earth, correct?
quote:
I'm not violating my scientific integrity by saying that the earth is young.
Yes, you are.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 7:15:44 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Gluadys, what are you doing? If the Bible gives an age of 6000ish years, and states that he cosmic bodies were created after flowering plants, then the Bible is untrue according to the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. Whether we use the word "myth" to describe such a scenario or not is not an issue.
No, it does not mean the Bible is untrue. It means the Bible is not scientific. It means that the Bible does not present a scientific description of the creation of the cosmos.
That doesn't make the Bible's presentation of creation untrue. It just means it is true in a different way than science is true.
btw, it doesn't make the scientific description untrue either.
quote:
I think the word "myth" fits just fine because it implies that the story bears little basis in reality.
Is that because you believe science has a corner on reality?
I would say again that this is an incorrect attitude toward myth. I find the biblical myths (such as the Garden of Eden story) to have a solid basis in reality.
quote:
Or perhaps both. I think I've examined it enough to come to at least some educated conclusion. But I think I've got the advantage since I'm siding with the word of God.
No, you are not siding with the word of God any more or less than I am. You are adopting a way of reading scripture and siding with that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 7:18:19 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Of course, they have adapted! But that's not the degree of change required to evolve into the "next generation". I certainly remember enough freshman microbiology to know that taxanomioc nomenclature in bacteria is based on specific heritable traits. And after thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria, they always remain the same bacteria, just as predicted by the theory of evolution
Edited for accuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 8:34:41 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Evolution = Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
I see you misinterpret the dictionary almost as well as you misinterpret history, gluadys.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 9:01:38 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Evolution = Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
I see you misinterpret the dictionary almost as well as you misinterpret history, gluadys.
That should be "and possibly resulting in the development of new species". New varieties (and in bacteria, new strains) are also due to change in the genetic composition of a populations during successive generations, and that is also evolution.
The appearance of a new species is not a sine qua non of evolution. It is something that happens in the right circumstances. But the lack of a new species is not an indication that the population is not evolving or that the theory of evolution is erroneous.
Besides, there are plenty of examples where new species have been observed too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 9:32:43 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
That should be "and possibly resulting in the development of new species". No matter, gluadys. E coli remain E coli even after tens of thousands of generations, so you still have no observational evidence for evolution!
quote:
Besides, there are plenty of examples where new species have been observed too. Sure, there are plenty of examples where biologists rename species, but none of the "new" species have evolved novel pathways, tissues, organ systems, etc. It's all smoke and mirrors, isn't it!
quote:
But the lack of a new species is not an indication that the population is not evolving or that the theory of evolution is erroneous. Of course, when one's faith-based religion has no objective data in support, one is prone to make dogmatic assertions like this. It merely confirms the unfalsifiability of what is turning out to be not even a testable hypothesis. And you want these "scientific facts" taught as truth to my grandchildren with my tax dollars? So sad.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 1:26:26 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
That should be "and possibly resulting in the development of new species". No matter, gluadys. E coli remain E coli even after tens of thousands of generations, so you still have no observational evidence for evolution!
But we do have plenty of different varieties and strains of E. coli. It is not as if the whole population of E. coli was identical. How do you explain this diversity without evolution?
quote:
Sure, there are plenty of examples where biologists rename species, but none of the "new" species have evolved novel pathways, tissues, organ systems, etc. It's all smoke and mirrors, isn't it!
No, it is not smoke and mirrors. New species are new species. And they have evolved novel modifications of pathways, tissues, systems etc. Those modifications are what is expected of evolution. One of Darwin's favorite phrases for evolution was "descent with modification".
It is your insistence on novelty without ancestry that is the strawman here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 1:43:19 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
How do you explain this diversity without evolution? Oh come on, gluadys, why do you persist in wasting our time in semantic gamesmanship?!
quote:
It is your insistence on novelty without ancestry that is the strawman here. It is your insistence on evolving the definition of "evolve" any time you wish to change the subject that is the real communication breakdown here!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 1:58:03 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
No matter, gluadys. E coli remain E coli even after tens of thousands of generations, so you still have no observational evidence for evolution!
Humans and chimps remain apes.
quote:
Sure, there are plenty of examples where biologists rename species, but none of the "new" species have evolved novel pathways, tissues, organ systems, etc. It's all smoke and mirrors, isn't it!
The evolved E. coli strain does have a novel pathway: citrate metabolism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 1:59:44 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Oh come on, gluadys, why do you persist in wasting our time in semantic gamesmanship?!
You mean gamesmanship like this?
"E coli remain E coli even after tens of thousands of generations . . ."--drmark
Your definition of evolution is that evolution doesn't occur if you can call two different species by the same name. That is semantic gamesmanship.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 2:22:08 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Hello DanJames,
quote:
quote:
Why can't proponents of ID -- or, heck! just avowed and interested Christians! -- look at the details of scientific claims in the hopes of finding an INTERNAL contradiction. Does the devil control logic? Or can it be a tool to find him out?
I'm not sure what you mean. You'll have to elaborate.
Thanks for inviting me to explain myself.
I agree that scientists may be basing their beliefs on assumptions and logic based on such assumptions. However, I would like, as Christian and as a rational interlocutor, to look at the assumptions specifically and explain why they are not safe or patently obvious. Or, if their assumptions turn out not to be the problem -- to point out the contradictions in their logic -- irrespective of alternative paradigms.
For example, if the comparison of proportions of various radioisotopes present in the open earth system or atmosphere as a whole versus what is seen in samples of fossils, which presumably became cut off from various nutrient and substance-cycles upon their death or burial, then is it the assumptions inherent in this or perhaps the result drawn from this that are fallacious? I am not sure.
Do you see what I mean?
I am wondering if perhaps science can't be asked to stand on its own merits, and fall if it is found to have faults.
Feel free to respond to me in whatever thread you think this question is most relevant to. If you think a new thread ought to be started from this, cut and paste -- I am sure to find it.
Thanks,
Nathan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 3:43:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Humans and chimps remain apes. ...and primates, and mammals, and vertebrates and even animals. Your point, please? These are merely human-derived taxonomic classification schema which do nothing to demonstrate the evolution of animals into vertebrates, vertebrates into mammals, mammals into primates, and primates into hominids. Just one example, Method - is that asking too much?
quote:
The evolved E. coli strain does have a novel pathway: citrate metabolism. The "evolved" E coli strain has "evolved" into nothing more than its ancestor plus citrate metabolism. I have "evolved" a crooked left pinkie from my ancestor. Please tell us how these marvelous feats lead to all the earth's biodiversity!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 3:54:35 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
...and primates, and mammals, and vertebrates and even animals. Your point, please? These are merely human-derived taxonomic classification schema which do nothing to demonstrate the evolution of animals into vertebrates, vertebrates into mammals, mammals into primates, and primates into hominids. Just one example, Method - is that asking too much?
Vertebrates do not evolve into mammals. Mammals are vertebrates. Mammals do not evolve into primates. Primates are mammals.
And if my points are invalid then so is yours.
quote:
The "evolved" E coli strain has "evolved" into nothing more than its ancestor plus citrate metabolism.
Otherwise known as descent with modification, just as Darwin first hypothesized.
quote:
I have "evolved" a crooked left pinkie from my ancestor. Please tell us how these marvelous feats lead to all the earth's biodiversity!
Is the crook heritable? Is it due to a genetic mutation?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 4:09:41 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
How do you explain this diversity without evolution? Oh come on, gluadys, why do you persist in wasting our time in semantic gamesmanship?!
I am not asking for semantics. I am asking for an actual description of the emergence of diversity that does not use evolutionary process. Or an admission that diversity, within species as well as across species, is the product of the process of evolution.
quote:
It is your insistence on evolving the definition of "evolve" any time you wish to change the subject that is the real communication breakdown here!
I haven't changed the definition of evolution. The fact is that creationsists can't dispute the scientific concept of evolution, so they have to invent new strawman definitions.
I've seen them all: "macroevolution" that is somehow different from "microevolution". A requirement for "higher, more perfect" forms, something beyond variation and adaptation, completely new "kinds" never seen before, new "information".
All straws waving in the hands of creationists, and all irrelevant to the actual process of evolution.
< Message edited by gluadys -- 6/21/2008 4:17:45 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 6:06:17 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is the crook heritable? Is it due to a genetic mutation? Irrelevant to the actual process of evolution, as gluadys would say. I have descended from my ancestors with modification - I AM EVOLVED! *gasp*
quote:
I am asking for an actual description of the emergence of diversity that does not use evolutionary process. Well excuse me, I thought you were familiar with Genesis chapter 1, verses 11-12, 20-21, and 24-27. Forgive my ignorance of your awareness of God's Word, gluadys.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 6:17:41 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I have descended from my ancestors with modification - I AM EVOLVED! *gasp*
Well, not quite. Individuals don't evolve. Species do. But whether or not the crook in your finger in heritable is relevant to the possible role of evolution in your heritage and in that of your offspring.
quote:
Well excuse me, I thought you were familiar with Genesis chapter 1, verses 11-12, 20-21, and 24-27. Forgive my ignorance of your awareness of God's Word, gluadys.
So, is it your contention that God created this new strain of E.coli which metabolizes citric acid directly by fiat and without the process of evolution? Did he do it in creation week or a few bacterial generations ago in the lab? How would we determine that no evolutionary process such as inheritable mutations or natural selection were involved? What if the ongoing investigation shows a change in DNA sequence and gene expression that accounts for this new ability?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 9:01:10 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 634
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Hello DanJames,
quote:
quote:
Why can't proponents of ID -- or, heck! just avowed and interested Christians! -- look at the details of scientific claims in the hopes of finding an INTERNAL contradiction. Does the devil control logic? Or can it be a tool to find him out?
I'm not sure what you mean. You'll have to elaborate.
Thanks for inviting me to explain myself.
I agree that scientists may be basing their beliefs on assumptions and logic based on such assumptions. However, I would like, as Christian and as a rational interlocutor, to look at the assumptions specifically and explain why they are not safe or patently obvious. Or, if their assumptions turn out not to be the problem -- to point out the contradictions in their logic -- irrespective of alternative paradigms.
For example, if the comparison of proportions of various radioisotopes present in the open earth system or atmosphere as a whole versus what is seen in samples of fossils, which presumably became cut off from various nutrient and substance-cycles upon their death or burial, then is it the assumptions inherent in this or perhaps the result drawn from this that are fallacious? I am not sure.
Do you see what I mean?
I am wondering if perhaps science can't be asked to stand on its own merits, and fall if it is found to have faults.
Feel free to respond to me in whatever thread you think this question is most relevant to. If you think a new thread ought to be started from this, cut and paste -- I am sure to find it.
Thanks,
Nathan
I'm not sure this thread has a subject any more. This one fits in with the OP just as well as any other. I think that science works. We can find out a great deal of things using the scientific method, and research, and publishing. I don't doubt the ability of science to come to great discoveries, as indeed it has. I think it has to be the interpretation of the observed where two go wrong. Two men with equal credentials will look at the Grand Canyon and one will point out the great power of God's judgment, the other will point out the vast ages represented in the strata. I would say that the Uniformitarian is ignoring the evidence contrary to his thought process, others would say that the Creationist is a religious nut ignoring years of geologic precedent. Both could very accurately describe the mechanics of floods, pyroclastic flows, laminar flows, gas charged slurries, erosion, tectonics, and earthquakes, yet they come to different conclusions because their starting point is driving them irreparably in different directions -- forcing them to different interpretations and different conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/21/2008 9:13:06 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 634
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
No, it does not mean the Bible is untrue. It means the Bible is not scientific. It means that the Bible does not present a scientific description of the creation of the cosmos.
That doesn't make the Bible's presentation of creation untrue. It just means it is true in a different way than science is true.
btw, it doesn't make the scientific description untrue either.
quote:
I think the word "myth" fits just fine because it implies that the story bears little basis in reality.
Is that because you believe science has a corner on reality?
I'm not sure what you mean, but for the most part I think that science is doing a pretty good job of unraveling the mysteries of the universe, though I wouldn't call it a corner because we know so little.
quote:
I would say again that this is an incorrect attitude toward myth. I find the biblical myths (such as the Garden of Eden story) to have a solid basis in reality.
How can they have a solid basis in reality if God made an additional creature for Adam to name? How can they have a basis in reality if God made Eve from Adam's side? How about the talking snake? By "solid basis" do you mean that the story has its root in actual, not-so-different-from-normal-happenings events? Adam actually was a primitive human with natural, not-quite-human parents? He lived to about 50 like we would expect and God just claimed that he lived to be nine-hundred?
quote:
quote:
Or perhaps both. I think I've examined it enough to come to at least some educated conclusion. But I think I've got the advantage since I'm siding with the word of God.
No, you are not siding with the word of God any more or less than I am. You are adopting a way of reading scripture and siding with that.
In all sincerity, I was responding to so many posts that I forgot who I was talking to. I understand your view on the scriptures. I wouldn't have made that comment if I had realized it was you I was talking to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/22/2008 9:41:10 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, is it your contention that God created this new strain of E.coli which metabolizes citric acid directly by fiat and without the process of evolution? More semantic gamesmanship, I see! You specifically asked for "an actual description of the emergence of diversity that does not use evolutionary process." I promptly shared the natural history of the Creation week, which you then tortuously "evolved" into the adaptation of E coli to local substrate metabolism. Do you even realize what you're doing, gluadys? Or has GTE brainwashed you to such an extent that you no longer are capable of distinguishing putative mechanism from final result?
quote:
So, is it your contention that God created this new strain of E.coli which metabolizes citric acid directly by fiat and without the process of evolution? No, it is my contention that you (and the secular humanists you seem to admire) routinely conflate RM+NS/adaptation with UCD because you have ZERO evidence for goo-to-you evolution. So this is my last warning: figure it out or find someone else with whom to play mindless word games!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/22/2008 2:48:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So, is it your contention that God created this new strain of E.coli which metabolizes citric acid directly by fiat and without the process of evolution? No,
OK. Do you agree then that this new strain of E. coli came about through the mechanisms of evolution?
If not, at what point do you think something other than evolution occurred?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/22/2008 3:10:31 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Is that because you believe science has a corner on reality?
I'm not sure what you mean, but for the most part I think that science is doing a pretty good job of unraveling the mysteries of the universe, though I wouldn't call it a corner because we know so little.
I was using the phrase in the economic sense of "having a corner on the market". It means being in control because one has all the available product and no competitors.
So when I ask if you believe science has a corner on reality, I am asking if you think there is no reality outside of what we call scientific. Is what we can study (now and in the future) via science, the sum total of all that exists? Is there nothing else you would call "reality"?
quote:
quote:
quote:
I think the word "myth" fits just fine because it implies that the story bears little basis in reality.
I would say again that this is an incorrect attitude toward myth. I find the biblical myths (such as the Garden of Eden story) to have a solid basis in reality.
How can they have a solid basis in reality if God made an additional creature for Adam to name? How can they have a basis in reality if God made Eve from Adam's side? How about the talking snake? By "solid basis" do you mean that the story has its root in actual, not-so-different-from-normal-happenings events? Adam actually was a primitive human with natural, not-quite-human parents? He lived to about 50 like we would expect and God just claimed that he lived to be nine-hundred?
This is what I am getting at, when I ask what you mean by reality. Take Eve being made from Adam's rib. A common rabbinic interpretation of this is to indicate that men and women are to be equal in companionship and mutual help. Eve was not made from Adam's head (which would indicate that women should dominate and command men), nor was she made from his foot (which would indicate that men could trample down women), but from his side, under his arm, near his heart to indicate that a man should treat her as a companion and helper, protect her and cherish her as an equal.
Now, I would say that in depicting Eve being created from Adam's rib, the creation myth speaks to the reality of the proper relationship between men and women. That is its basis in reality.
Is it necessary, in order for it to be "real" that an actual individual man undergo actual physical surgery and an actual human rib be reshaped into a woman? Why is this essential to the reality of the story? Is it because it could, in principle, be observed in a scientific way?
Does science have a corner on reality?
All of your questions seem to assume that if it is not scientifically real, it is not real at all.
Why not consider some other types of reality?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/22/2008 6:19:48 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
OK. Do you agree then that this new strain of E. coli came about through the mechanisms of evolution?
If not, at what point do you think something other than evolution occurred? No, gluadys, that is your contention by redefining "evolution" to mean anything you wish for any scenario you dream up! This new strain of E coli came about by RM+NS resulting in adaptation to an artificially induced environment. In other words, it was intelligently designed!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/22/2008 7:48:12 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1655
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
OK. Do you agree then that this new strain of E. coli came about through the mechanisms of evolution?
If not, at what point do you think something other than evolution occurred? No, gluadys, that is your contention by redefining "evolution" to mean anything you wish for any scenario you dream up! This new strain of E coli came about by RM+NS resulting in adaptation to an artificially induced environment. In other words, it was intelligently designed!
Aren't you redefining intelligent design to mean anything you wish?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/22/2008 10:30:17 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
OK. Do you agree then that this new strain of E. coli came about through the mechanisms of evolution?
If not, at what point do you think something other than evolution occurred? No, gluadys, that is your contention by redefining "evolution" to mean anything you wish for any scenario you dream up! This new strain of E coli came about by RM+NS resulting in adaptation to an artificially induced environment. In other words, it was intelligently designed!
What was intelligently designed? The artificial environment? Sure. The mutation? Not by the researchers. So who intelligently designed the RM+NS? Or is that an evolutionary mechanism operating inside the artificial environment in the same way as it would in a natural environment?
Oh, and if this change in E.coli needs a designed environment, what about changes that occur in nature? Doesn't that mean the Intelligent Designer does not need to meddle with evolution? Just design the environment to induce the evolutionary changes desired.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
