The journal new scientist in reported that " an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"
Yeah, of course it did Traste - I cannot believe the endless stream of crap you produce. Do you have a reference to this at all???
No, he was talking about uracil - can you not read?
this theory as one scientist puts it" is fatally flawed because it failed to explained where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecule."
Who was this scientist? Please provide his name and where he made the quote.
n addition RNA cannot function independently without the help from the 2 macromolecules the protein and DNA
Really? Please provide evidence of this. Given the RNA Hypothesis, you might have thought that there would be an idea that this is not true... but that would have required 'thought' and I don't see a lot of that in these posts...
the quote comes from the British 'New Scientist' journal in an article entitled "Darwins Theory: An Exercise in Science" June 25th 1981 by Michael Ruse.
Ah, I see. So it wasn't New Scientist stating this - it was made within an article - do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said? Or are the creationists all just copying each other's quote-mine yet again?
but im sure a copy could be got from New Scientist
I may even have a copy in my archive - but it would take some climbing and searching
But the point is - Michael Ruse who is being quoted as saying
" an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"
when questioned on this, replied
"No reputable biologist has any doubts about evolution -- it is so easy to quote people out of context."
so I don't think we even need to look for the article, when the author in question is giving us his own view...
i dont know how science officiates such ideas/theories/laws
how did Newtons/Gallileo or Eisteins laws become official?
Well, don't forget that a 'law' is merely a concensus on observation, and is considerably below a theory in terms of scientific standing. Laws become widely accepted by those scientists widely accepting the underlying observations.
Others are not so confident. Melnick concluded that the eye is a marvel and that ‘its immense complexity and diversity in nature, as well as its beauty and perfection in so many different creatures of the world, defies explanation even by macroevolution’s most ardent supporters.’8
Melnick? Who the f'ck is Melnick??? And where did he say this? Notice the '8' at the end of Traste's text? That's the reference included on that webage He definitely needs lessons in plagerism. That reference gives us:
quote:Melnick, J., Vision: an evolutionary enigma, Christian Citizen 1(9):26,1981