Whether a change happened in a Darwinian way as opposed to horizontal gene transfer is now a matter for research, not dogma.
In my recent post, On the impossibility of replicating the cell: A problem for naturalism, I argued that naturalism, even if true, cannot be shown to be true or even probable – in which case, I asked, why should rational people believe it? The responses of my critics reveal a real poverty of thinking on […]
By the way, yes, he is the guy associated with the Smithsonian controversy — how the Smithsonian saved Darwinism from science.
Science publishing CEO: scientific publishing, surprisingly, has hardly changed since the first journal article in 1665.
According to the recent genome map of Strigamia maritima
The theory also explains altruism. Yes, that’s the thing. Always the need to explain away altruism.
It’s not true, of course, that Darwinian interpretations are based on fact. They are based on naturalism. Conflicting facts must yield.
In my previous post Silver Asiatic asked: “What do you mean by organization being of a higher order than simple order? Why don’t these [natural] forces produce organization? Those are better areas for discussion, in my opinion.” (comment #122) Organization I think the distinction organization vs. order is fundamental in the design / evolution debate. […]
BBC: Watson is the first living recipient to auction off his Nobel medal
Researcher: we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.
“Self-peer review?” Okay: Everyone is, by definition his or her own peer, right? If we flunk that review, my dears, we DO need help.
So they evolved by losing information? Like most evolution we have actually observed?
So, in short, the earliest seeds had a sophisticated mechanism that some later plants have lost, due to “natural selection.”
They are masters at the art of what sounds good but doesn’t really work.
Fed up as they are with doubters and unbelievers like ourselves, the Darwin lobby needs to clone this guy.