"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

This looks very interesting, I'd prefer something from the actual research paper to a newspaper article but in the interest of expediency I will promote this as is.The article has been published here, this is the abstract, those with the neccessary academic access should be able to get the full text.TTFN,AW*ABE* Rectified faulty linkThis message has been edited by AdminWounded, 10-Feb-2006 11:24 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I've switched it to the abstract on the Pubmed site, thanks for the heads-up.TTFN,AW

In that case this isn't the thread for you.If you feel you have a productive point then please feel free to take it to a thread where it is on topic or put forward a PNT on this issue.But if you have nothing to the point to contribute please do not post on this thread.This applies to everyone, please don't derail this thread arguing with Garrett.Perhaps a thread on the concept of dogmatism might be productive.TTFN,AW

The title of this thread is Not the topic of this thread. The title is a quote from an article discussing a recent article in 'The Anatomical Record'.What you are discussing has nothing to do with that article, if you think it does then please show me how.If not then please stop posting on this thread.Whether mutation can cause an increase in information, no matter how you define it, is not something which has any relevance at all to this work.Please stop derailing this thread with discussions of information content, it is just as off topic as discussions of Dawkin's treatment at AIG. If you can't find an extant thread on these topics then propose a new one, but this is not a suitable thread for either.If you aren't interested in discussing the paper that Randman's article concerns then you shouldn't be on this thread.TTFN,AW

Please take all of this to some other thread, it is off topic here.TTFN,AW

Please take this to the 'Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?' thread or somewhere else where this discussion is on topic.TTFN,AW

The recent discussion seems wholly generic. This thread has a topic, if no one is interested in discussing it then I might as well close the thread down.Anyone care to discuss the Maresca and Schwartz paper and its agreement, or lack thereof, with Randman's ideas about the fossil record? Or should this thread be put to bed?TTFN,AWThis message has been edited by AdminWounded, 22-Feb-2006 12:58 PM