Stephen T-B

MM: you'll find out, as I did, that someone or other who posts here knows everything there is to know about something or other. The knowledge base at Infidels is awesome, but what's nice is that ignoramouses like me are allowed to butt it from time to time without being squashed flat.

Oolon Colluphid

I've checked this previously, and for once (IIRC), it's not particularly misleading in itself. Patrick is right to point it out, but only the 'omnipotent' is particularly objectionable. 'Highly potent' would cover it .

It could also mean seriously proposed possible explanations. Creationists seem to object to my alternative 'blundering sadist' explanation for poor designs, for some reason .

Oolon

lpetrich

Darwin's name got attached to the idea of evolution for a good reason: he made a really strong case for it and he discussed a variety of evolution-related phenomena:

* Homology
* Vestigial features
* The biotas of oceanic islands
* Biogeography in general

He grappled with a variety of difficulties, such as

* High-quality adaptations like eyes
* Social insects' non-reproducing castes
* Lack of gradual transitions in the fossil record

And he also worked out a simple and effective way that evolution can happen:

* Natural selection

It certainly seems simple after one learns of it; his colleague Thomas Huxley had allegedly commented "How stupid of me not to have thought of that" -- and became one of Darwin's biggest supporters.

Motorcycle Mama

Duvenoy - You are missing nothing. The devotion of some "modern" biologists to molecular level studies approaches that of a devout Christian to God and Christ, but with less thought.
Motorcycle Mama

MortalWombat

Would you like to clarify this? Are you implying that molecular genetics has no or little use in the study of evolution?

Motorcycle Mama

Dear Mortal Wombat:
I do not imply that molecular data is of no use in the establishing of relationships, or the study of the products of evolution. The reference is to the special status afforded molecular, often DNA, data. Given a conflict between morphological and molecular data, the latter is often considered to be superior mainly on the basis of the purported significance of DNA in biology. A great deal could be added here but time and space preclude it. But I would offer the opinion that there is nothing in modern molecular systematics that would conflict with 18th century natural theology; modern molecular systematics could be viewed as a highly technical, analytically sophisticated way to describe God's creation.
Motorcycle Mama

Duvenoy

I don't see that any religious belief system has anything to do with these studies. Surely, the people doing them are dedicated, but they are working in the real world with real process'.

I'll admit that they are picking the nit until it bleeds, but that's what science is supposed to do. Find out.

Me, I wouldn't have the patience for it.

doov

MortalWombat

I don't know what beef you have with molecular geneticists in your own personal experiences, but based on the data presented in the literature, I don't see any religious overtones presented. For example, where do you find mention of God or religion in papers describing transposon insertions used to trace cetacean-artiodactyl relationships, or 16S ribosomal RNA sequence comparisons between protists?

Motorcycle Mama

Sorry, I was vague. The reference to religion in the use of molecular data has nothing to do with God but the way that DNA is treated like a diety, it is given special status regardless of the kind of results it gives. In the study of flowering plants, for example, the data derived from studies of DNA are notoriously ambiguous yet those studies are still accorded special status, more meaningful than, say, morphological data.
Motorcycle Mama

RBH

Ipetrich wrote It is being discussed, though, both here and on ARN. See the "Give equal time to alternate views on origins" thread here for some very enlightening posts.

RBH