Comments on: Molecular Evolution Proven

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:40:54 +0000

I’m not exactly sure how Kent J thinks that “Magic Man Did It Using His Magic Hands” is more reasonable or less complex of an undertaking than “gradual change over a very, very long period of time did it.”

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:30:46 +0000

I think I’ll rely on professional scientists to inform me about the validity of evolution rather than an uninformed dolt who obviously could not obtain a passing grade in high school English. Thanks just the same, Kent.

By: Kent J

Kent J — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:55:43 +0000

I think it is reasonable to say that the understanding we have of the complexities of life on this planet leave room for people to say ” it is REASONABLE to suggest DNA was designed”

Get my point? The clock maker argument has become 100 times, if not a 1000 times more reasonable since it was first asked.

I have never met an atheist/evolutionist who was at least reasonable enough to agree that they are asking an aweful lot from me to simply nod my head that EVERYTHING just happened. You may hate behe.. but please… the systems in the human body, if described thoroughly, out loud, to a group of people forced to listen to it.. would leave them dying of old age but i would think ENRAPTURED in the HUGE COMPLEXITY OF THE SYSTEMS WALKING THIS PLANET. And any scientist worth anything better admit that they two are occasionally found SLACK jawed when the enormity of it hits them.

It is like a tornado blowing through the universe and creating fREAKING EVERYTHING…. you are out of your minds… my goodness.. you evolutoinsists are wack jobs.. and you manage to pull of making us…. doubters (i am a doubter in evolution.. not a BELIEVER in something else..fyi) sound crazy.

yeah.. i am crazy.. but i am right.

screw you evolutionists unreasonable fcks.

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:00:31 +0000

When will people learn that just because they don’t understand something doesn’t make it complex. Similar to how one isn’t an artist just because they are misunderstood.

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:01:14 +0000

But we must still pass laws to prevent them from getting married!

By: Jeff Hebert

Jeff Hebert — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:04:46 +0000

Clearly he meant single-celled viruses to mean UNMARRIED viruses. That’s why they’re so dangerous, they’re constant cruising the immune system looking to get laid.

By: Senator Craig

Senator Craig — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:08:54 +0000

Laugh all you want, but no matter what you do, watch out for the multi-celled viruses

By: Genesius

Genesius — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:05:33 +0000

“Genesius, your critique is totally uncalled for. In the context of Edward Kerr’s post, single cell viruses are obviously meant to be understood as the opposite of multiple-cell viruses, which are bigger.”

Must be tough to type with your tongue that deep in your cheek. . .

By: Jr.

Jr. — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:15:24 +0000

Hey.

This is on another topic entirely, but it’s sort of worth noting, if you need a quick fundie outrage minute. They changed the Texas Pledge from “I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible” to “I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.”

No word yet on why, but it certainly lost it’s ring.

By: EricSan

EricSan — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:04:12 +0000

The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity is a good read. I find it absolutely amazing that Behe is allowed to spew his utter nonsense. Then again, he unwittingly marks a point AGAINST evolution in a sense, because he’s able to sell a 200 year old debunked argument (the “watchmaker”) to unsuspecting Americans, so obviously, we haven’t evolved as much as we wish we had. Sadly.

By: Senator Craig

Senator Craig — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:16:40 +0000

Genesius, your critique is totally uncalled for. In the context of Edward Kerr’s post, single cell viruses are obviously meant to be understood as the opposite of multiple-cell viruses, which are bigger.

By: Chris Street

Chris Street — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:08:42 +0000

I’ve just started blogging (today) on Creationism v Evolution

I bought Michael Behe ‘Darwins Black Box’ a few years ago – but its still in my ‘to be read’ book section.

From Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070816143825.htm

“The work involving the protein is detailed in a paper appearing online Aug. 16 in Science Express (abstract here):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1142819
where the journal Science promotes selected research in advance of regular publication.”

The University of Oregon have the press release:
http://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=8.16.07-Ancient-Proteins.html

Supporting Online Material for Crystal Structure of an Ancient Protein: Evolution by Conformational Epistasis:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1142819/DC1/1
contents: Materials and Methods, Figures, Tables and References

It would be interesting to read the full Science article – cost $10
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1142819.pdf

I’ve reposted some of the Science article here:
http://creationismvevolution.blogspot.com/2007/08/crystal-structure-of-ancient-protein.html