Irreducible Complexity

[Zach]

txviper-

Mutations are touted as the means for the development of every single species, both plant and animal, both living and extinct. That means that mutations and them only, are responsible for such things as blue whales evolving from some land mammal (one related to cows, pigs and sheep was the last theory I heard). Perhaps this seems reasonable to you. It does not to me. I do not think that it can be demonstrated that mutations are effective enough to do things like this. Selection, adaptation, etc. are not even part of the argument. It comes down to nothing but mutations.

 

Could you plainly state your thesis for me? I think I'm reading a "microevolution but not macroevolution" perspective, but I just want to clarify.

[Kuroikaze]

“You should note that larger brains do not equate to higher intelligence”

 

Generally, of course they do. Why would you want to argue that muscle mass is an obvious advantage and a bigger brain is not?

106570[/snapback]

 

this is an ignorant statement. Neanderthal man had a larger brain than us but we have no reason to believe that he was smarter than us. Whales have larger brains than us but are not smarter....so on and so forth, take time to think before you post something.

[Mr. Neil]

Oh jesus fucking christ! Intelligence has almost nothing to do with brain size, Viper, whether in proportion to the body or proportion to other brains.

 

Kuroikaze is right. If size mattered, then animals like whales and elephants would be much smarter than we are. granted, these are proportionally larger creatures, but even proportionate size doesn't matter. If it did, then cows and killer whales would have comparable intelligence. Obviously they don't. I would also like to point out that mice have a higher brain-to-body size ratio than humans, and that doesn't make them smarter.

 

The difference in brain size on an individual human basis, whether proportionally or literally, is of absolutely no significance.

 

Ref. http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-si-bo.htm

[txviper]

Penny1,

 

Gosh, I was even willing to let you be the smart one. You can be the angry one also. Don't you remember me telling you:

 

"I would have made a lousy scientist. It’s that evidence thing. People really get put out with you if you really expect to see it."

 

 

----------------------

 

 

Zach,

 

"Could you plainly state your thesis for me? I think I'm reading a "microevolution but not macroevolution" perspective, but I just want to clarify."

 

That is accurate.

[MrSpooky]

First, I’m not sure what you mean by “has evolved resistance to a gene”.

 

There has been a lot of noise about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, but this is not on account of the bacteria mutating defenses as a response. What happens is that antibiotics kill the ones with no resistance and the survivors, who are resistant, reproduce. I recognize that mutation is still involved but not reactively. Contrary to what you might think, I do acknowledge both mutation and natural selection. If I did not understand what you were talking about, my apologies.

 

My mistake. I meant that bacteria evolve resistance to an antibiotic.

 

And you've just proved my point entirely. NO ONE in evolutionary biology believe that evolution works by self-directed mechanisms. NO ONE in evolutionary biology believes that an organism reacts to stress and evolves in such a manner (though some bacteria do seem to have such a potential). Your statement of how you think bacteria develop resistance is the VERY THESIS of evolution by natural selection.

 

Thank you very much for your concession to the fact of natural selection. So what EXACTLY is your qualm with evolution if it is not with natural selection?

[Zach]

txviper-

 

Okay, can you explain scientifically why, if humans and chimpanzees did not coevolve, how we have endogenous retrovirus insertions in the same locations?

[Penny1]

Penny1,

 

Gosh, I was even willing to let you be the smart one. You can be the angry one also. Don't you remember me telling you:

 

"I would have made a lousy scientist. It’s that evidence thing. People really get put out with you if you really expect to see it."

 

 

Don't you remember me telling you also that you are ignorant of the basics of biology? As I said before, you are a time waster.

 

I would have been happy to answer your questions, or attempt to answer them, if you had not gotten incredibly snippy and sarcastic with me.

 

A person can be both smart and angry. There is no "smart one" and "angry one". That is really a stupid concept. But then, Christians tend to think in terms of absolutes.

 

Get a brain transplant from a mouse, and then, perhaps, reconsider your response.

[Saviourmachine]

There has been a lot of noise about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, but this is not on account of the bacteria mutating defenses as a response. What happens is that antibiotics kill the ones with no resistance and the survivors, who are resistant, reproduce. I recognize that mutation is still involved but not reactively. Contrary to what you might think, I do acknowledge both mutation and natural selection. If I did not understand what you were talking about, my apologies.

106570[/snapback]

That's Lamarckian. Your conception of biological evolution needs an update.

 

Or do you suggest that mutagenic stress responses exist and has the potential to speed evolution in response to stress? That can indeed be the case like is described in this paper: Adaptive mutation and amplification in Escherichia coli: two pathways of genome adaptation under stress [Hersh]. Or do you refer to the concept of "adaptive mutation" like described in this paper: Amplification-mutagenesis: how growth under selection contributes to the origin of genetic diversity and explains the phenomenon of adaptive mutation [Roth]?

 

I found an interesting article providing evidence regarding the advantage of sexual recombination. Adaptation shapes patterns of genome evolution on sexual and asexual chromosomes in Drosophila. [bachtrog | Nature letter]

What advantage might sexual recombination confer? Population genetics theory predicts that asexual genomes are less efficient at eliminating deleterious mutations and incorporating beneficial alleles. Here, I compare patterns of genome evolution in a 40-kb gene-rich region on homologous neo-sex chromosomes of Drosophila miranda. Genes on the non-recombining neo-Y show various signs of degeneration, including transposable-element insertions, frameshift mutations and a higher rate of amino-acid substitution. In contrast, loci on the recombining neo-X show intact open reading frames and generally low rates of amino-acid substitution. One exceptional gene on the neo-X shows evidence for adaptive protein evolution, affecting patterns of variability at neighboring regions along the chromosome. These findings illustrate the limits to natural selection in an asexual genome. Deleterious mutations, including repetitive DNA, accumulate on a non-recombining chromosome, whereas rapid protein evolution due to positive selection is confined to the recombining homolog.

Papers like these are easily obtained through e.g. PubMed when entering the right keywords: mutation, frameshift, adaptive, neo-darwinism etc.

[txviper]

Penny,

 

"It [evolution] has been reproduced, again and again, in the laboratory"

 

I think you really believe this. It has not. Perhaps you could just answer the question Dawkins balked on about examples of new genetic information.

 

 

"You are rich and privileged"

 

Well, I invest well. But if you pick stocks like you pick things to believe in, I can see why you might be disappointed in returns.

 

 

"Mutation is NOT the only mechanism for change. Mutation is the means by which diversification occurs, but it is NOT the only means of change"

 

Name a few. The ones that add new genetic information. I'll short this trade.

 

 

"Quit wasting my precious time"

 

Are you tied to a chair? My name is at the top of my posts. Just don't read them. I bet you just can't resist.

 

 

"There is no crime greater than wasting other people's time"

 

Yeah, I remember one of the prosecutors at the Nuremburg trials saying something like "You are charged with heinously wasting everyone's time!"

 

 

"You question basic tenets of biology"

 

You're really irritated about prokaryotes having DNA aren't you? I think the King James would render it as "thou hast erred and now thou art steamed".

 

 

"It's time for you to leave"

 

What? Did I take the pebble from you hand?

 

 

"you would not be able to sit here jeering at me"

 

My wife keeps asking me "are you jeering at someone in there?"

 

 

"People have lives of their own. They come on here to engage in intelligent discourse, not to get beaten over the head by a troll"

 

Okay, now here is where we draw the line. If you had a teaspoon of humanity, you'd be careful about saying things like that. It is not easy living under a bridge with your butt wet all the time. Being a Christian troll is no cakewalk, Penny. It's like something out of the "Grapes of Wrath" except you're short, too.

 

But you make a good point. How about a bumper sticker that reads "I got spanked online by a troll"?

 

 

------------------------------

 

 

Kuroikaze,

 

“this is an ignorant statement. Neanderthal man had a larger brain than us but we have no reason to believe that he was smarter than us. Whales have larger brains than us but are not smarter....so on and so forth, take time to think before you post something.”

 

I believe you know what I was talking about and why I prefixed my thought with “generally”. Much has been written in the way of commentary and speculation about Neanderthals having larger brains than HSS’s. If you want to involve yourself in a vigorous but polite debate, I will enjoy that. But I’m trying to engage several people here. I am not disturbed by insults or accusations, or the people who deliver them. I just don’t have time for them.

 

--------------------------------

 

 

MrSpooky,

 

”Your statement of how you think bacteria develop resistance is the VERY THESIS of evolution by natural selection”

 

Somehow I have still not made my question, premise, inquiry or whatever it is at this point, clear. I am not interested in talking about selection. I acknowledge it, recognize it and agree with it. It is a reality.

 

From my very first post in this thread, I have been trying to get someone to explain why it is reasonable to believe that something as unlikely, gentle, inconsequential and otherwise ineffective as mutations, can account for millions of species. Just that.

 

And I thought I was frustrated in the muslim forums trying to get them to explain why their prophet didn't have any prophecies.

 

I suppose it is time to move on to some other subject. This one is apparently going to die an unaddressed death.

 

 

”Thank you very much for your concession to the fact of natural selection”

 

Well, you are welcome, but that isn’t a concession. I understand selection, natural or otherwise. I’ve been to dog shows many times.

 

 

“So what EXACTLY is your qualm with evolution if it is not with natural selection?”

 

I have lots of them. This one was about probabilities and, as always, evidence.

 

 

-------------------------------------

 

 

Zach,

 

“Okay, can you explain scientifically why, if humans and chimpanzees did not coevolve, how we have endogenous retrovirus insertions in the same locations?”

 

No I cannot and would not want to. But there has been some great work done since the completion of the chimp genome (’03?). This report is about your question. It will mean more to you obviously, than it does to me, but I did not detect anything that would rate as conclusive evidence in it. I should note that we have not addressed dating methodology here yet. You would say co-evolved, I would say co-existed.

 

http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Yohn_L...insertions'

 

 

----------------------------

 

 

S-machine,

 

I will try to find time to read the links you posted. However, this discussion can’t get particularly technical for several reasons.

 

First, I am only an interested student of the issues concerning the TOE, and will never be an expert in any of the disciplines. My stronger suit is theology, which I don’t want to go near just yet.

 

Second, I just don’t have the time. I am the only creationist answering in this thread and am struggling to keep up.

 

Third, nobody will read anything too long or too technically involved.

 

I will try and respond as best as I can to your post and appreciate your politeness. I would be interested in your thoughts on the premise I have posed, which is about mutation.

[Saviourmachine]

From my very first post in this thread, I have been trying to get someone to explain why it is reasonable to believe that something as unlikely, gentle, inconsequential and otherwise ineffective as mutations, can account for millions of species. Just that.

107175[/snapback]

Study

I don't know if I understand your question exactly. I strongly suggest you to invest more in these issues if you want to discuss them. Technical papers don't have many secrets if someone actually starts to read them. And you're priviliged, because English is your first language, isn't it?

 

Agreement

You understand the pressure of selection. That term pressure denotes already embedded power. You also understand the power of point mutations if they decrease fitness. You understand also that a mutation can sometimes cause a benefit in stead of a disadvantage? Then your question remains a question about the time that is needed. The time that is needed for a beneficial mutation to occur, and the time that is needed for it to spread through a population.

 

Deleterious vs Beneficial Mutuations

Sorry, I'll cite some more studies. Here [1] describes a scientist how sex diminishes the influence of deleterious mutations and ensures that a specie will adapt faster (the rate in which the beneficial mutations will spread to the population is higher).

 

Haldane's Dilemma

You are probably searching for arguments along the line of Haldane's Dilemma [2]. ReMine as proponent thought that there was not enough time from the common ancestors of monkeys and human to current human. The theory is based upon environmental changes and its effect upon the genome.

 

Mutation Kinds & Results

Maybe you are only of point mutations, but don't forget amplification mutagenesis (multiplication of genetic fragments). Subsequently point mutations wouldn't destroy the previous coded protein, but only half its production. Don't forget also that what is beneficial can hide in very small beneficial mutations. Doubling the production of some protein could be beneficial for example. And a lot of other chemical stuff, we yet don't know.

 

Neo-Darwinism

Maybe you can search for anti Neo-Darwinism studies. Here [3] evo-devos seem to be posed as opponents, and some arguments are stated. However, I can pose some questions too: Is it so that mutations only add variation to the gene pool? But would it not give evolutionary benefit when certain mutations can be filtered out and others be encouraged? For example, if it's better to double a genetic fragment and only subsequently allow for point mutation, would that genetic system not exist in most modern species?

 

Keywords

If your problem is about time, you should do some searches on 'molecular clock'.

 

Sources

[1] A ruby in the rubbish: beneficial mutations, deleterious mutations and the evolution of sex [Peck].

[2] Rebuttal to talk.origins website [ReMine].

[3] The role of mutational and other biases in variation [stoltzfus].

[Zach]

No I cannot and would not want to. But there has been some great work done since the completion of the chimp genome (’03?). This report is about your question. It will mean more to you obviously, than it does to me, but I did not detect anything that would rate as conclusive evidence in it. I should note that we have not addressed dating methodology here yet. You would say co-evolved, I would say co-existed.

 

http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Yohn_L...insertions'

You would not want to explore the reason why humans and chimpanzees have retroviral insertions in the same locations? That seems puzzling to me, because it is evidence that strongly undermines your thesis. Since retroviral insertions are random events in the genome, the only mechanism for genomic congruency is inheritance. Thus, two individual organisms that share retrovirus insertions share common ancestry.

 

The article you've linked to does address the subject of retroviral insertions in primates, but it is concerned with element PTERV-1. This retrovirus is specific to chimpanzees, and the article itself speculates that the insertion of PTERV-1 occurred after human and chimpanzee lineages parted.

 

A more salient article can be found here, by Yuri Lebedev. This article is concerned with HERV-K, which is a retrovirus insertion found in humans, as well as all other primates. Interestingly, and fatal to your thesis, he makes the observation that three separate insertion congruencies exist between humans and chimpanzees. In addition, common locations at other locations in the genome occur in the same hierarchy that genomic homology suggests.

 

If you are to stand by your thesis, you need to propose a mechanism whereby retroviral elements can insert identically in two different species using only random recombination. Please show your work.

[MrSpooky]

This is made by ANOTHER POSTER in ANOTHER FORUM:

 

 

 

 

Funny that you should ask that, because the human ape chromosome difference provides some incredibly compelling evidence in favor of common ancestry. After it was discovered that the great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23 pairs, it was hypothesized that two of our chromosomes had fused together sometime in the past to explain the missing pair. This hypothesis makes the following predictions:

 

1) We would expect to see a human chromosome that looked like two chimpanzee chromosomes stuck together end on end.

2) We would expect to see two telomeres (the distinctive ends of the chromosome) somewhere in the middle of the fused chromosome. So if the original chromosome looked something like: ENDblahblahblahblahblahDNE, then if two of them were fused together you would expect to see something like: ENDblahblahblahblahblahDNEENDblahblahblahblahblahDNE.

3) Finally, we would also expect to see two centomeres (a distinctive central portion) in the fused chromosome. So if the original chromosome looked like this: ENDblahblahCENTOMEREblahblahDNE, after they fused together you would expect to see something like this: ENDblahblahCENTOMEREblahblahDNEENDblahblahCENTOMEREblahblahDNE.

 

So, how did these predictions turn out? Well, looking at human chromosome 2 (on the left), we do see that it bears striking similarity to two of the chimpanzee chromosomes, except fused together:

 

 

What about the telomeres?

 

 

The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true in reference 3 . Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of the bases 5'TTAGGG running toward the end of the chromosome. Furthermore, there is a characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-telomeric region, the region just before the telomere. When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming (CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location. Note that the CCCTAA sequence is the reversed complement of TTAGGG (C pairs with G, and T pairs with A).

 

 

 

And the centomeres?

 

 

The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.

 

So the remnants of the telomeres and centomeres were found at precisely the exact locations where they would be expected, had the two chromosomes fused together, which is some pretty damning evidence if you ask me.

 

 

 

(credit should go to NoDamage from the SA forums)

[Samurai Tailor]

(credit should go to NoDamage from the SA forums)

107287[/snapback]

And prior to that (or at least alongside), scigirl of IIDB:

 

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739#post2199739

[Mr. Neil]

[Kuroikaze]

 

Kuroikaze,

 

“this is an ignorant statement. Neanderthal man had a larger brain than us but we have no reason to believe that he was smarter than us. Whales have larger brains than us but are not smarter....so on and so forth, take time to think before you post something.”

 

I believe you know what I was talking about and why I prefixed my thought with “generally”. Much has been written in the way of commentary and speculation about Neanderthals having larger brains than HSS’s. If you want to involve yourself in a vigorous but polite debate, I will enjoy that. But I’m trying to engage several people here. I am not disturbed by insults or accusations, or the people who deliver them. I just don’t have time for them.

 

--------------------------------

 

 

Uh....how was I insulting? Just because I claimed your statement was ignorant? I was not trying to instult you so sorry if you took it that way. My point was that generally you are wrong. I understood your point perfectly but was pointing out that "Generally" size has nothing to do with inteligence. Mr. Neil did an even better job refuting you than I did but you didn't even address his post.

 

I was not being impolite nor instulting, just submiting that you didn't understand something very basic. If your instulted by that then go study and learn, rather than getting mad at me.

[Penny1]

I would like to propose a hypothesis to replace the concept of Irreducible Complexity. My concept is Irreparable Simplicity (IS for short). The idea is this: no matter how many stunning arguments you put forth, no matter how you try to build concept upon concept, txviper will ignore all your hard work, and proceed to ask you questions other people have already answered, or he will ask you for evidence of basic knowledge of Biology you have presented, then refuse to follow the links for "lack of time," or else he will point out mispellings and eroors, without correcting his own.

 

The concept of Irreparable Simplicity may also be referred to as Irreparable Stupidity (but that's just plain politically incorrect, isn't it?)

 

I submit this hypothesis for your evaluation.

[Mr. Neil]

The concept of Irreparable Simplicity may also be referred to as Irreparable Stupidity (but that's just plain politically incorrect, isn't it?) 

I propose that we call it Irrational Dimwittery. That way, we have the same abbreviation.

[txviper]

Kuroikaze, S-machine, Zach, MrSpooky,

 

It's gonna be a little while before I can respond. We are scrambling at work leading up to T-giving. Hopefully tomorrow I can post before leaving for the weekend.

 

Thanks for your posts, but I do want to stick to the mutations issue for a while.

 

Viper

[Zach]

Understood- I'll be waiting for your answer.

[Penny1]

The concept of Irreparable Simplicity may also be referred to as Irreparable Stupidity (but that's just plain politically incorrect, isn't it?) 

I propose that we call it Irrational Dimwittery. That way, we have the same abbreviation.

107830[/snapback]

 

No, no, Mr. Neil, you don't understand- it's a system that's so simple, it cannot be made more complex (i.e. able to absorb complex concepts). The system keeps reverting to the norm (or whatever's simple enough to be understood in one or two sentences.)

 

Come to think of it, it sounds equally as ridiculous as Irreducible Complexity. A system that cannot be built upon?

[Penny1]

Zach,

 

"Could you plainly state your thesis for me? I think I'm reading a "microevolution but not macroevolution" perspective, but I just want to clarify."

 

That is accurate.

106837[/snapback]

 

 

If you admit to microevolution, you also have to admit to macroevolution. The idea is that small changes over time add up to big changes. You can hardly deny that.

 

As a businessman, you should know that. I'm surprised that you even managed to save up enough money to invest at all, if you don't understand small changes adding up to big ones. Why, that's the foundation of accrual of interest.

 

My advice: you'll lose a lot of money investing. All bets are off there.

 

Ha, ha. I win.

[MrSpooky]

Once you admit to the blind force of natural selection as having the capacity to change a population's gene pool, the only question that remains is if and how natural selection is able to cause higher-level effects such as the formation of complex organs and speciation and such.

[Saviourmachine]

Yes. It's like for example the water cycle. It seems you understand that water evaporates. That it can be transferred in the atmosphere. That it can fall down again as rain or snow. And that rivers can transport it back to the sea. It seems you believes in the working of every part of the process. You only disbelieve that this process is so powerful that it explains every river on earth. You would like to have evidence that every drop of water in a river ultimately originates from the sea.

Although I can understand your doubts, because they originates from other values that you believe in, I think you're a bit too critical. Take into consideration the facts and studies that are available and the water cycle theory turns out to be very believable. And maybe it's evitable to believe in a god that sends us the rain from uphigh. And is a more natural reasoning also allowed. And are other readings from the scriptures allowed too...

Readings that need more flexibility from your brain, but that would give maybe more satisfaction too, and maybe a greater award in heaven.

 

Was it not Jesus that softened the old testament reading of stoning adulterers? Was it not Jesus that took Davids' words (The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?) and used the "my Lord" sentence about David liberately for himself? Would Jesus argue about doctrine of would he be helping the poor and studying developmental economics?

[txviper]

S-machine,

 

Sorry this has taken so long. My time for posting will be scarce during the holiday season, however I am still very much interested in the discussion.

 

 

“Study

I don't know if I understand your question exactly”

 

My question is one of plausibility. Mutations are the only mechanism evolution can rely on to add new genetic information to the gene pool. It is my contention that:

 

Mutations are scarce.

The ones that do occur are usually, to the tune of about 99%, neutral.

Of the remaining 1%, most are harmful.

The ones that seem to be beneficial are very difficult to identify as such.

 

The supposed engine of change is then, not powerful at all. Certainly not dynamic enough to account for millions of species.

 

 

“Agreement

You understand also that a mutation can sometimes cause a benefit in stead of a disadvantage?”

 

Perhaps, though listing these, especially ones with no coincidental deleterious effects, is extremely difficult. Also, it is the “sometimes” in your statement that is the problem. Evolutionary theory is resting on a ridiculously rare “sometimes” device to supposedly push organisms from single-celled ones all the way to outrageous complexity,

 

 

“Deleterious vs Beneficial Mutuations

sex diminishes the influence of deleterious mutations and ensures that a specie will adapt faster (the rate in which the beneficial mutations will spread to the population is higher)”

 

Adaptation, selection and environmental pressure are not involved here. They are about what happens after mutations supposedly occur. I want mutations to be considered independently.

 

 

“Haldane's Dilemma

The theory is based upon environmental changes and its effect upon the genome”

 

Haldane’a dilemma remains a dilemma. It was never suitably addressed, just ignored.

 

 

“Mutation Kinds & Results

Don't forget also that what is beneficial can hide in very small beneficial mutations”

 

The problem with the hidden benefits is that they seem to be so very small that they can’t be documented. To accept that they are there is a position of faith.

 

“Doubling the production of some protein could be beneficial for example”

 

“could be” is speculation, which is fine as long as it is recognised as such.

 

"And a lot of other chemical stuff, we yet don't know”

 

But we should believe anyway without proof? Semper Fidelis.

 

 

“Neo-Darwinism

Is it so that mutations only add variation to the gene pool?”

 

It is an interesting commentary that a new Darwinism had to be formulated at all. In my view, this amounts to two things. First it is a not-so-candid admission of lack of evidence. Second is that I see this as a pivot point where a failing scientific theory rolled over into scientism, a religious undertaking.

 

“But would it not give evolutionary benefit when certain mutations can be filtered out and others be encouraged?”

 

Of course, This, however is about selection again.

 

“For example, if it's better to double a genetic fragment and only subsequently allow for point mutation, would that genetic system not exist in most modern species?”

 

Doubling a genetic fragment does not mean adding beneficial instructions to the genome. Marvelous things exist in every modern species. The question is about whether or not accidental copy errors are responsible for them.

 

-------------------------------

 

 

"Would Jesus argue about doctrine"

 

 

No, He would point out the flaws of false religious doctrine.

 

 

 

------------------------------------

 

 

MrSpooky,

 

 

"how natural selection is able to cause higher-level effects"

 

 

Mutations and only mutations can be causal.

 

 

I have not forgotten your and Zach's other posts.

[Mr. Neil]

Oh, gee... I'm sorry, TX. I was going to tell you when the new evolution program was going to start over at Freethought Media. It aired yesterday.

 

Don't worry, though. You can play it any time you want at the following URL: http://www.infidelguy.com/FLAM_PLAYER_REP/...1130346818.html

 

It's two hours long. Enjoy the show!