83
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: + + +
no edit summary
: You would accept a quote from AiG? Why do I have my doubts? Nevertheless, you have a point, and although I'll leave the quote in, I'll clarify it.
: You would accept a quote from AiG? Why do I have my doubts? Nevertheless, you have a point, and although I'll leave the quote in, I'll clarify it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::So you admit genetic information can change, but not obtain new meaning? I really don't understand your concept of "new meaning". If you have the sentence ''THE HAT WAS RED'' a H->C mutation occurs ''THE '''C'''AT WAS RED''. I would call this new meaning, although you could probably argue that it was 'corrupted' from it's earlier version in that it no longer carries the same meaning, but I don't see that as a problem. And I was commenting on that people have different concepts of what is "evolved", a lot of people believe that dogs are somehow ''more evolved'' than worms. Bacteria are successful, in that they are not static. There happens to be a site that refutes that very article [[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]], and I'm very glad they have since I have little time to go through and pick it apart myself. Honestly, I find it hard to go through their lines of reasoning, it seems as if they don't fully grasp the idea of plasmids.
::And I wouldn't myself accept a quote from AIG as a satisfactory argument, I have very little respect for their work. However, they are used commonly on this site as an appropriate if not authoritative source. It's just that if a preacher spent his whole life studying the bible and said once: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that an invisible supernatural being exists which was able to create everything we know." despite explaining afterwards what he meant, and backing up his claims in numerous books, it would be misleading to use this quote single-handedly to try and discredit his life's work. Although, I do thank you for changing it to read a little more accurately. Perhaps you should pick up ''What Evolution Is'' by Mayr, it's written for the general reader (I assume you haven't taken undergrad biology courses?) and sums up Mayr's reasoning well. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)