"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Marcus.Aurelius

JC, perhaps, as requested earlier, you should familiarise yourself with the difference between phenotype and genotype.

You could also do with a crash course in elementary molecular biology/biochemistry and some bioinformatics.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... but why do some Evolutionists refer to their opponents as mentally ill?

smokingman
If I need to explain that to you then there's plenty of hospices I can recommend.

All I can say is that it is a particularly nasty and sinister habit ... going around describing perfectly rational and sane people as mentally ill ... just because they don't believe that they are a 'monkey's cousin' ... and it says more about your own lack of judgement than it does about the objects of your unfounded vitrol!!!:(

... and what exactly do you mean by this obnoxious remark about hospices ... I hope that you don't have to visit a hospice for some time yourself ... and if this was meant to be some kind of joke ... it is a very sick one indeed.

J C

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

JC, perhaps, as requested earlier, you should familiarise yourself with the difference between phenotype and genotype.

You could also do with a crash course in elementary molecular biology/biochemistry and some bioinformatics.

... I've forgotten more about bioinformatics than you are likely to have ever known!!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

I've forgotten more about bioinformatics than you are likely to have ever known!!!!

This may indeed be the problem.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... 'macroevolution is indeed a load of unsubstantiated baloney without a shred of evidence or logic supporting it.

Except for the evidence in this article called 29+ evidences for macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

J C wrote: »

... the Peppered Moth is just an example of genetic drift within a species within a Created Kind using pre-existing genetic information. All that has happened is that the % of the Moth Population with darker colouration increased within the population when the environment became darker due to smoke damage from industrialisation ... and the population has swung back again recently when the environment has been cleaned up by the Clean Air Acts!!!

None of this provides any evidence that this Moth is ever going to be anything except a Moth!!!

Lets get this straight, you've just used evolutionist words to describe
the process of natural selection right here & agree with it but for
some reason you have a problem with the theory you use. My friend you
keep using evolutionist terms - I'm starting to think your an
evolutionismistic person. Furthermore you are mentioning mechanisms
by which evolution acts - but didn't you write earlier that evolution
only consisted of one mechanism? Where is that argument now that
you're actually going against what you said by using the
other mechanisms of evolution to attempt to explain things in your
own way? The Lie basket?

This example is not meant to provide evidence a moth with
turn into anything except a moth but it does hint at what natural selection
actually can do - and you seem to accept it after writing what you just
wrote - albeit you'll deny it (confused much?).

J C wrote: »

... NS and sexual selection are selection mechanisms. The problem faced by proponents of Evolution isn't the selection mechanism (everybody accepts that NS is capable of selection) ... the problem is generating the CFSI upon which NS acts ... and the only way that the CFSI can be generated is by the action of intelligence.

Honestly I've forgotten what CFSI even means J C, so here you've
written you accept natural selection. Will you stop targeting NS then,
leave it alone you accept it. What the hell are you trying to say here?

J C wrote: »

... and they're still Finches ... and the Ground Finches can all interbreed ... so they are just varieties of Finches!!!!!!!

I actually thought they couldn't interbreed J C, thanks for making me
research this little factoid. Here is a little piece you'll enjoy reading
seeing as Jonathan Wells is mentioned:

Wells also has a problem with the number of species of Darwin's finches.
He writes, "Most of the fourteen species of Darwin's finches -- or at
least most of the thirteen living on the Galapagos Islands -- remain
distinct primarily because of mating behavior. Evidence suggests that
the birds choose their mates on the basis of beak morphology and song
pattern. The former is inherited, while the latter is learned by young
birds from their parents. But one might expect that true species would
be separated by more than beak morphology and song pattern".
He then says, "Peter Grant acknowledged that if species were strictly
defined by inability to interbreed then 'we would recognize only two
species of Darwin's finch on Daphne', instead of the usual four" (p. 170).
But wait a minute.
Are species defined "strictly by inability to interbreed"? Not by any
species concept commonly used today. The Biological Species
concept as described by Mayr emphasizes reproductive isolation
rather than lack of interfertility. The key to the concept is barriers to
gene exchange, which can include infertility, but are not restricted to it
by any means. Discussions of prezygotic reproductive barriers can be
found in any decent textbook. Wells knows this. He also knows that
reproductive isolation in the finches on the Galapagos is primarily of the
prezygotic type, because his sources by the Grants emphasize it over
and over. For example, in "Genetics and the origin of bird species" they
say, "First, speciation in birds proceeds with the evolution of behavioral
barriers to interbreeding; postmating [postzygotic] isolation usually
evolves much later, perhaps after gene exchange has all but ceased".
So, Wells has no real point here. However, the general public not
familiar with species concepts as used by biologists might consider
his arguments authoritative.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html

But according to scientific taxonomy your classification of these birds
is incorrect. Call them whatever you want but it's just not science to
say they are the same species when they are not categorized that
way by the professionals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE

J C wrote: »

Equally, Darwin's Finches illustrate rapid speciation in action within Created Kinds ... wahich accounts for the variety of modern organisms that arose from the common ancestors who were on Noah's Ark.

There's no evidence of Noah's Ark J C, where is the evidence?

J C wrote: »

... they are still viruses and bacteria ... and have they been so for up to a billion Evolutionist 'years'!!!!

Terrible answer, you're cheating yourself with this answer - totally
avoided the facts I presented there J C, I'm happy with this - I'm not
the one lying to myself by ignoring this clear example of evolution in
action.

J C wrote: »

... can we not have a difference of scientific opinion without you proving the weakness of your argument by your bullying prejudicial personal remarks???

You don't have a scientific opinion J C, your opinion is like that of a
stubborn child who refuses to listen to acknowledge they've been
bold & continues to repeat their mistakes.

J C wrote: »

The bottom line is that I am still correct that while a mutation may alter a protein and cause it to do something 'unusual' that may have a benefit to the organism ... this only occurs in a tiny minority of cases and it always involved a degradation of the CFSI of the organism.

... and the only reason that only 70 percent of these mutations have damaging effects, is because of the intelligently designed auto-correction systems that ameliorate the effects of mutagenesis and the article says that the 'remainder are either neutral or weakly beneficial' ... which means that the 'unsual' are only a tiny minority just like said!!!

Very different to what you said earlier, that was different to

... a mutation may indeed alter a protein and cause it to do something 'unusual' that may have a benefit to the organism ... but this only occurs in a tiny minority of cases and it always involved a degrading of the CFSI of the organism.

But J C, 30% is not always - is it? The fact that they are neutral is
not the same as them being degraded is it? You lied yesterday.
At least you've faced a bit of truth by changing your lie today,
glad we could spot it because you certainly aren't honest enough to
fess up to this little trick your playing - fishing for loopholes.

The fact that it's 30% in this one particular species says so much, the
fact you acknowledge it says more. Do you want to know what
that 30% is capable of when mixed with the other mechanisms of
evolution?

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that
occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime
between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single
inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958
this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of
different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan
strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or
behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan
strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky
1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila
melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this
population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural
chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of
chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of
chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate
choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced
a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups.
In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully
to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson
1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two
mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each
treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body
mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into
a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and
each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were
recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two
of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these
treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40
generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two
treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was
repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed
mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment
which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection
against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship
behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of
mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There are so many examples in that link it's too much to quote.
This is the amount of evidence you're denying.

I think I understand what "the problem is generating the CFSI upon
which NS acts" means, you said this above. If I'm right it means
producing the genetic variety on which natural selection is supposed
to act. Well if that is what you mean, and by the way NS is not the
only thing that acts as I keep explaining, then here is an example of
how your wrong. Above, the 30% is more than enough to explain why
the drosophilia above are producing sterile males - this is speciation J C,
caused by genetic variation, time, geographic seperation etc...

Tell me how degredation factors into this, seeing as that's what you said.

J C wrote: »

... it can do some good ... but it certainly isn't the mechanism that constructed your Sega megadrive in the first place ... and the only reason that the game didn't 'pack in' the first time you kicked is because of the robust built-in systems protecting the game.

Which evolution explains, evolution explains the need for such systems
in living organisms, it explains why every species needs it's own
protection. Not for my sega obviously

J C wrote: »

A living organism has never been produced in a lab ... despite the applied intelligence thousands of scientists being harnessed in the attrempt to achieve it ... so why do you think that it could possibly have spontaneously occurred ... using nothing but accumulated mistakes and time?

But science hasn't claimed to create a living organism in a lab so this
is just waffle, I feel sorry for you J C, you're denial is so deeply ingrained
that you're happy fobbing off responses to my answers - any old response
does not constitute a justifiable response. It's not "nothing" btw,
if thats what you think of the origin on life - it being "nothing" then I
feel sorry for you.

You've changed a lot of your talk after the last reply because none of it
stands up, when you said;

I stand over my statement that the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

it was wrong. Are you going to acknowledge this yet? I've already told you
a good few posts ago this was incorrect but you still haven't fessed up
& admitted you lied.

Where is all this talk of your mathematical proof now that you were
repeating in every post? Total bull****, we found you out to be a
huckster. The hilarious thing is that all I needed to to was check your
figures, the fact you based all your theory on figures that were incorrect
means you were wrong, the order of magnitude by which you were off by
is utterly astounding - something like 80 billion

I'm unclear,
1) you accept natural selection,
2) you accept microevolution.
3) You have a problem with genetics because of the chance element.
4) You deny macroevolution.
5) You deny abiogenesis.

The answer to 4) is that 4) is just 2), that's all. There is so much
evidence in the first link I gave to convince you - if you have a problem
with macroevolution then show the scientific community why those
29+ examples are wrong.
5) has been shown in a labratory, if you think it's incorrect then
write your scientific paper to show this, otherwise you're just a denier.
3) your problem with the chance element seems to be the whole
content, well this is a problem with microevolution. It seems that you
were simply so confused about what you believed and didn't believe,
because of those creationist websites no doubt, that you were
accepting that which you reject. We've seen a lot of examples of you
doing this, well I'd advise you to study up on genetics so that you can
take the subject down a peg or two. Note this should have been a
discussion focusing on genetics more than evolution. You've wasted a
lot of time targeting natural selection and the whole concept of evolution,
as all of the quotes in this thread prove, while it seems your whole problem
was with the once concept of evolution you actually accepted back then,
microevolution. How ironic :pac:

J C

keppler wrote: »

J C you still have not answered fluffybums question..:rolleyes: or for that matter any of ghostbusters, sponsoredwalk's.....i mean the list just goes on!
all you are doing is throwing the same crackpot ideas and that stupid proof that you claim to be true...;) infront of us and then proceed to insert your fingers in your ears!!!!!..

now J C you keep referring to these great creationist scientists again and again and you should know that all good scientists must put there theories to the test however may i remind you that you have repeatedly ignored fluffy's observed flaw in the assumptions you made regarding your proof ...... but yet you are continually ignoring him.....
AND ME....
AND GHOSTBUSTER .....
AND SPONSORED........

... there are only so many ways that I can say you're wrong !!!

and until you (or anybody else) provides any evidence for the spontaneous production of Complex Functional Specified Information ... there is nothing that I need to say!!!

Marcus.Aurelius

J C wrote: »

... I've forgotten more about bioinformatics than you are likely to have ever known!!!!

Really, how do you figure that?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

and until you (or anybody else) provides any evidence for the spontaneous production of Complex Functional Specified Information ... there is nothing that I need to say!!!

Haha, what this really means is that you want proof that intelligence
literally popped up spontaneously out of mud in front of your eyes
or you wont be satisfied.
The theory of evolution - which you more or less accept judging by
your most recent comments - tells you that it took billions of years for
what you consider "complex" to be formed. Personally I consider eukaryotes
complex but there you go - it's just a value judgement at this stage.

Your answer is that it takes billions of years to produce what you see
around you today, if the evolutionary clock was winded back, to
paraphrase the words of Steven Jay Gould - a man I'm sure you've
misquoted in the past - things would *probably* wind up very differently.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Except for the evidence in this article called 29+ evidences for macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

I visited your link above and the first thing I saw was the following quote from the great Creation Scientist and 'father of modern Taxonomy' ... Carol Linnaeus, at the beginning of Systema Naturae, 1757 :-

"OH JEHOVA, quam ampla sunt opera Tua."
"OH JEHOVA, how great are Your works"

I really couldn't have said it better myself.

When the Atheists in the talkorigins site are quoting Creation Scientists ... and the Atheists on the A & A are linking to it ... I think I'll rest my case ... and savour the moment !!!!:)

sponsoredwalk

Yes, quoting the father of taxonomy in a discussion including taxonomic
classification who was born and died before the theory of evolution does
give your argument justification

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I've forgotten more about bioinformatics than you are likely to have ever known!!!!

robindch
This may indeed be the problem.

The lack of knowledge amongst many Evolutionists of scientific principles is indeed the problem, Robin!!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yes, quoting the father of taxonomy in a discussion including taxonomic
classification who was born and died before the theory of evolution does
give your argument justification

I didn't introduce the quote ... it was on the link you provided ... and I just thought it was quite ironic.

... and the evolutionist belief that we are all descended from Pondslime is as old as the Ancient Greeks ... so Carol Linnaeus would have known of this unfounded idea ... but he didn't believe it!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I didn't introduce the quote ... it was on the link you provided ... and I just thought it was quite ironic.

The belief that we are all descended from Pondslime is as old as the Ancient Greeks ... so Carol Linnaeus would have known of this unfounded idea ... but he didn't believe it!!!

How little I care about that can be...
Your avoiding the substance of my post

5uspect

J C wrote: »

... I've forgotten more about bioinformatics than you are likely to have ever known!!!!

I've only some some basic bioinformatics myself, gene expression, PCA, that sort of thing.

As an expert in the field what software do you use?
What techniques you find work best?

Have you published any papers in the field?

Fluffybums

5uspect wrote: »

I've only some some basic bioinformatics myself, gene expression, PCA, that sort of thing.

As an expert in the field what software do you use?
What techniques you find work best?

Have you published any papers in the field?

ditto

Fluffybums

Fluffybums wrote: »

JC, you asked for us to specifically address your proof that the mechanism proposed for abiogenisis and evolution is incorrect. I looked at your mathematical proof and this is the issue that I have with it. I have asked you to address this a number of times and you have either reiterated the mathematical proof or ignored me.


So once again.


THE CHEMICALS REQUIRED FOR ABIOGENISIS WERE NOT BOMBING AROUND IN THE UNIVERSE, THEY WERE ON A PLANET AND IN AN AQUEOUS ENVIRONMENT.[/B]

JC, still waiting for this issue with your proof to be addressed............

5uspect

Fluffybums wrote: »

JC, still waiting for this issue with your proof to be addressed............

I gave up waiting for J C to provide anything resembling proof years ago.

Marcus.Aurelius

5uspect wrote: »

I've only some some basic bioinformatics myself, gene expression, PCA, that sort of thing.

As an expert in the field what software do you use?
What techniques you find work best?

Have you published any papers in the field?

I was hoping he would make some reply to explain what he meant by this. I would love to know what experience he has in this subject.

5uspect

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I was hoping he would make some reply to explain what he meant by this. I would love to know what experience he has in this subject.

Bioinformatics is a large and complex area. If J C has the expertise he claims to have he certainly hasn't made it known until now. He may not want to show us any of his published work to maintain his anonymity but he can surely point us to the particular software and hardware he uses.

keppler

J C wrote: »

... there are only so many ways that I can say you're wrong !!!

and until you (or anybody else) provides any evidence for the spontaneous production of Complex Functional Specified Information ... there is nothing that I need to say!!!

J C the only thing you are prooving here is that you are as stubborn as an R.C wall..!
Sorry to tell you but being stubborn does not make you correct!

My argument with you had nothing to do with your so called CFSI and solely to do with physics....... and you still ended the conversation very abruptly (obviously because you knew you were circling the drain:D)


J C ghostbuster asked you to explain the existence of introns and you replied with what i can only describe as creationist propaganda and one proper scientific article that DIDNT EVEN MENTION INTRONS IN IT...:mad: ...another lie jc you definitely did not read this article!!!!!

As for your so called CFSI sponsored walk has given you so much evidence
but you are so blatantly biased in your outlook that you cannot see the facts....:cool:
J C you have claimed you are a scientist an expert in the field of bioinformatics..:pac: . Then why dont you act like one...... all you do is fish tediously for gaps in theories and explanations and then shout..... HA there you go you havnt answered that problem .....but i can GOD DID IT...:rolleyes:
JC im so sorry to tell you but that is not how proper scientists conduct themselves.

keppler

just when we're talking about lying again...;) did anyone see John J May on the panel?
if so did anyone pick up what he said about einstein...:D(i wonder if he put that lie in his book too)? maybe you can answer this question robin?
omg.... his proof for the existence of god.....people living in caves in spain yada yada..... even a group of comedians seriously under-equiped in scientific knowledge could tear him apart...:) makes me so happy

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

ditto

ditto ... as well !!!:D

sponsoredwalk

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1082698

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

THE CHEMICALS REQUIRED FOR ABIOGENISIS WERE NOT BOMBING AROUND IN THE UNIVERSE, THEY WERE ON A PLANET AND IN AN AQUEOUS ENVIRONMENT

JC, still waiting for this issue with your proof to be addressed............

The point that I was making is that the combinatorial space, for even a small protein biomolecule is vast ....
... and the typical Evolutionist response to this statement, is that the universe is also vast and you have the possibility of vast parallel processes searching out the combinatorial space.

The maths shows that the combinatorial space is so vast that even if every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimaly smalll fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!
... and as for confining the combinatorial search to the aqueous environments of planets (which is where it supposedly occurred) you can forget about it with bells on it!!!

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

The point that I was making is that combinatorial space, for even a small protein biomolecule is vast ....
... to this statement, the typical Evolutionist answer is that the universe is also vast and you have the possibility of vast parallel processes searching out the combinatorial space.

The maths shows that the combinatorial space is so vast that even if every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimaly smalll fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!
... and as for confining the combinatorial search to the aqueous environments of planets (which is where it supposedly occurred) you can forget about it with bells on it!!!

The premise of you argument against the proposed mechanism on abiogenesis is incorrect on two fronts:
1. The mechanism does not propose the formation of anything as complex as a 100 amino acid protein.
2. Your mathematical proof is based upon the vast combinatorial space of the universe, and at the risk of repeating myself, the mechanism you are hoping to disprove does not occur in the cast expanse of space but on a planet and specifically in an aqueous environment.

Now can you please address these issues with your argument and re-calculate. Telling me to "forget about it with bells on it!!!" is hardly a scientific or logical argument. You ask people to respect your arguments, so please when someone raises a valid problem with that argument at least supply a reasoned, logical reply with evidence. I at least have the experience and qualifications to prove that I can call myself a scientist, as you purport to be (details of your basis for this claim have also gone unanswered). I have had senior, experienced postdocs treat my queries with more respect than you have shown.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

The point that I was making is that combinatorial space, for even a small protein biomolecule is vast ....
... to this statement, the typical Evolutionist answer is that the universe is also vast and you have the possibility of vast parallel processes searching out the combinatorial space.

The maths shows that the combinatorial space is so vast that even if every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimaly smalll fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!
... and as for confining the combinatorial search to the aqueous environments of planets (which is where it supposedly occurred) you can forget about it with bells on it!!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

The odds scientists would look at are 1 in 10^40. Not 10^107. This has all been explained to you before.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The maths shows that the combinatorial space is so vast that even if every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimaly smalll fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.

Even though this is a totally meaningless statement with respect to
our conversation (or in the language J C is apparently so fond of:

[latex] f' \ = \ \frac{d \ (relevance \ of \ your \ analogy)}{d \ (this \ conversation)} \ = \ 0 [/latex])

what figures are you basing this joke analogy on? The old figures I
have shown were incorrect?

J C you used incorrect figures earlier to reach the same conclusion,
you're cheating everyone with lies here.

Oh, and you're avoiding my question - god knows why :rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The point that I was making is that combinatorial space, for even a small protein biomolecule is vast ....
... to this statement, the typical Evolutionist answer is that the universe is also vast and you have the possibility of vast parallel processes searching out the combinatorial space.

Has anybody in this thread given that answer once J C? Another lie and
it's also a strawman you've constructed for yourself.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1082698

Thanks for the link Sponsoredwalk ... the action begins at 0:35:20 !!!
... John May has followed in the footsteps of Richard Dawkins ... who also made an appearance on The Panel.

John May is a genius ... and a skeptic about many things, including organised religion ... so, in a lot of ways, he is actually one of you guys ... only he is also skeptical about Evolution (and with good reason) and has written a book about it!!!!:)

Fluffybums

JC, I think that most people here would have more respect for you point of view if you simply stated that you believe in the version of the origin of life and species as written in the bible because that is part of your faith and you believe that the bible is true. Where I for one have a problem is that you claim to be a scientist yet your arguments and replies indicate a barely fundamental understanding of biology (I can say about the physics and astronomy as my understanding of these is little more than second level).

Have the courage to be proud of your faith and admit that that is the basis of your belief in creation as described in Genesis. If you truely are a scientist - evidence?