Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

RL, you missed something in between the dots......

With the advent of RNA replication, Darwinian evolution was possible for the first time. Because of the inevitable copying mistakes, a number of variants of the original template molecules were formed. Some of these variants were replicated faster than others or proved more stable, thereby progressively crowding out less advantaged molecules. Eventually, a single molecular species, combining replicatability and stability in optimal fashion under prevailing conditions, became dominant. This, at the molecular level, is exactly the mechanism postulated by Darwin for the evolution of organisms: fortuitous variation, competition, selection and amplification of the fittest entity. The scenario is not just a theoretical construct. It has been reenacted many times in the laboratory with the help of a viral replicating enzyme, first in 1967 by the late American biochemist Sol Spiegelman of Columbia University
That was from 1995....don't worry...the science folk are still working on it.

Here's the new stuff:
http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html

The Origins of Function in Biological Nucleic Acids, Proteins, and Membranes

Summary: To increase understanding of the origin and early evolution of life, Jack Szostak explores the origins of functional biological macromolecules and membranes.

We apply Darwinian principles to evolve new functional molecules in the laboratory. We begin by generating large numbers of nucleic acid or peptide molecules with different sequences. We then impose selective pressure on this population to enrich for sequences with desired properties. Starting with a completely random pool provides a sparse but unbiased sample of sequence space, so that different, independent solutions to a given problem can be obtained. We can sample more than 1015 nucleic acid sequences and, after a few cycles of selection and amplification, recover the descendants of the rare functional molecules in the initial population. In vitro selection for sequences that fold into highly specific binding sites has been used to isolate many nucleic acids, called aptamers, that bind a wide range of small biomolecules, including nucleotides, amino acids, antibiotics, and cofactors.
One fundamental question that we are attempting to address through RNA aptamer selections is the relationship between information content and biochemical function. It seems intuitively obvious that more information should be required to specify or encode a structure that does a better job at performing some function, such as binding a target molecule. We have recently provided the first quantitative demonstration of such a relationship. We approached the problem by isolating a set of distinct aptamers, all of which bind the same target (GTP), but with a wide range of affinities. Our results show that the high-affinity aptamers are much more structurally complex than the low-affinity aptamers. By measuring the amount of information that is required to specify each structure, we were able to show that, on average, it takes about 10 bits of additional information to encode structures that are 10-fold better at binding GTP. Our current work is aimed at understanding the underlying physical basis for the observed relationship between information and function.

We are interested in applying directed evolution to nonstandard nucleic acids, as a way of asking whether life could have evolved using genetic polymers other than RNA. TNA (threose nucleic acid) is a particularly interesting nucleic acid synthesized by Albert Eschenmoser's group (Scripps Research Institute) in a search for possible progenitors of RNA. The sugar-phosphate backbone of TNA uses the four-carbon sugar threose, which might have been easier to come by prebiotically than the ribose of RNA. Despite the one-atom-shorter sugar-phosphate backbone repeat unit, TNA oligonucleotides can base-pair with themselves and with RNA and DNA. We have recently devised an approach to the enzymatic synthesis of TNA libraries, and experiments aimed at the in vitro evolution of TNA aptamers and catalysts are in progress.
The principles of in vitro selection and directed evolution can also be applied to proteins and peptides. We have used mRNA display, which involves the covalent attachment of a newly translated protein to its own mRNA, to select for new functional proteins from a large library of random-sequence polypeptides. Experiments of this sort should allow us to determine whether biology makes use of most of the possible protein folds, or uses only a small subset?-perhaps determined either by functional requirements or historical accident. We are also adapting mRNA display to allow for the synthesis of libraries of small, cyclic, highly modified peptides, similar to those made by the nonribosomal peptide synthases. This may provide a new approach to the isolation of relatively small molecules with a variety of useful functions.
We have recently begun to study the properties of membrane vesicles built from simple amphiphilic molecules such as fatty acids. Such vesicles are models for the compartment boundaries of primitive cells. Since the first cells had no biochemical machinery to mediate the growth and division of their membrane boundaries, there must be purely physical and chemical processes that allow membrane vesicles to grow and divide. Our goal is to find out what those processes could be. Growth turns out to be relatively simple, and Pier Luigi Luisi's lab (then at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich) has shown that fatty acid vesicles can grow by incorporating additional fatty acid supplied in the form of micelles. By combining that process with a procedure for division that forces large vesicles through small pores, we have demonstrated multiple generations of vesicle growth and division. We are currently exploring alternative division processes that might be more prebiotically realistic.
Fatty acid micelles can spontaneously aggregate and self-assemble into membrane vesicles, but this is a slow process with a long lag time. We found that many mineral surfaces abolish this lag phase, somehow helping the micelles to self-organize into membranes. One such mineral is the clay known as montmorillonite?-famous among prebiotic chemists for its activity in assembling activated nucleotides into RNA. Clay particles carrying adsorbed RNA can still help to assemble vesicles and, in the process, bring bound RNA into the interior of the vesicles. The remarkable fact that a simple, abundant mineral can bring together the key components of early life may help to simplify models for the origin of the earliest living cells.
We have recently begun to study the interaction of encapsulated RNA with vesicle membranes composed of single-chain amphiphiles. Encapsulated RNA contributes, through its associated cations, to the internal vesicle osmotic pressure. As a result, vesicles containing RNA are swollen, and the vesicle membrane is under tension; this provides a thermodynamic driving force for the incorporation of additional amphiphilic molecules into the membrane. A consequence is that RNA-containing vesicles grow when mixed with empty vesicles, which shrink as the membrane-forming molecules spontaneously redistribute themselves. This provides a new pathway for vesicle growth, and a potential mechanism by which mutations that enhance the replication of internal RNA could directly affect membrane growth. If faster RNA replication leads to faster membrane growth, and division occurs either stochastically or at a threshold size, the cell cycle will be shorter, leading to faster replication of the entire RNA/vesicle system. We think that this process could have led to the very early emergence of Darwinian evolution at the cellular level.
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and NASA.
Last updated: June 27, 2006


P

real life wrote:

timber wrote:

... Now, if you wish to wrap yourself in the comfort of anthropic arrogance through assaying to assign causality to some independent, supernatural, external-to-the-universe thing, condition, or state of being, fine, go right ahead; there is a "chance" that is so, however slight the probability. Please, though, don't attempt to dignify any such notion through implying it has any logical, scientific basis.

timber,

Even the author of your article seems to admit that there is scant to no evidence that the pre-RNA world that you wish to invoke actually existed.........

Quote:

As certain as many people are that the RNA world was a crucial phase in life's evolution, it cannot have been the first. Some form of abiotic chemistry must have existed before RNA came on the scene. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall call that earlier phase "protometabolism" to designate the set of unknown chemical reactions that generated the RNA world and sustained it throughout its existence......What can we conclude from this scenario, which, though purely hypothetical, depicts in logical succession the events that must have taken place if we accept the RNA-world hypothesis? And what, if anything, can we infer about the protometabolism that must have preceded it?.........

..............he apparently is very convinced that it did. (Saying these fantasies are in 'logical succession' Ow, oh my sides hurt. Yer killin me, timber)

I can just see you doubled over with maniacal laughter. That would be consistent with the stereotypical religionist reaction to anything inconvenient to the religionist proposition - "if you don't/won't/can't recognize, understand and accept it, laugh at it."

real life wrote:

I thought wishful thinking, according to you, was only the province of the religious?

('We don't know HOW it happened , we just KNOW that it did' ----from the tomb of the Unknown Evolutionist In fact the author candidly admits that he has no clue how, because any chemical pathways to his Nirvana are completely unknown.)

Scientific conjectures acknowleding gaps in data render a suggested hypothesis merely plausible and subject to further investigation are the absolute antithesis of the wishful thinking that is the whole of the religionist proposition.

real life wrote:

Since life from non-life generation won't work ( he admits ) with RNA or with DNA, he speculates that there just HAD TO BE (oh please there just had to be he he) a precursor which COULD and DID spontaneously generate living organisms from dead chemicals.

Straw man. While I have little reason to suspect you'll figure out neither how nor why your duplicitous mischaracterization creates the fallacy, I'll leave you to it.

Quote:

I thought you were for science based on evidence?

Precisely - and conjecture along plausible lines of inquiry develops evidence, one way or the other. The point is the inquiry.

Quote:

As the author gives the altar call, his theology is fully unveiled

Quote:

I have tried here to review some of the facts and ideas that are being considered to account for the early stages in the spontaneous emergence of life on earth. How much of the hypothetical mechanisms considered will stand the test of time is not known. But one affirmation can safely be made, regardless of the actual nature of the processes that generated life. These processes must have been highly deterministic. In other words, these processes were inevitable under the conditions that existed on the prebiotic earth. Furthermore, these processes are bound to occur similarly wherever and whenever similar conditions obtain.......It also seems likely that life would arise anywhere similar conditions are found because many successive steps are involved..........All of which leads me to conclude that life is an obligatory manifestation of matter, bound to arise where conditions are appropriate.

Your "altar call/theology" objection is yet another straw man. The author unambiguously differentiates between fact, fact-based finding, and plausible conjecture, logically, compellingly and validly arguing for the proposition that the emergence and development of life is not merely dependent upon but consequent to conditions and circumstances known to occur naturally throughout the observable universe irrespective of and regardless as-yet-undetermined particulars of the process. Science doesn't much give a **** concerning any metaphysical, ultimate WHY of any process, it concerns itself only with the discoverable, verifiable, proximate HOW. Only the religionist perceives this total disinterest in the metaphysical to be an "assault" on religion - the religionist's closed-ended need to believe stands in diametric opposition to science's open-ended drive to discover and understand. In short, science's open, honest thirst for understanding trumps belief's frightened, superstitious need for comfort.

The world isn't laughing with you, rl, its laughing at your proposition and the manner in which you present and defend that proposition.

Neither RNA nor DNA can be produced without the actions of the proteins, especially enzymes.

Scientists question deletions
(By Patrick Cain, Akron Beacon Journal, September 13, 2006)

COLUMBUS - A State Board of Education proposal that critics say could bring creationist teaching into science classrooms appears to be stalled. Meanwhile, evolution backers raised questions Tuesday about the board altering records to remove traces of its involvement in the potentially explosive issue.

On Monday, a board subcommittee did not vote as scheduled on the ``Controversial Issues Template'' as the proposal is known, although the issue could come up for a vote at next month's regularly scheduled board meeting.

The proposal provides guidelines for discussion of controversial topics, but evolution backers say it is a smoke screen to get intelligent design into classrooms. Intelligent design, or ID, is a controversial alternative to evolution that teaches life is so complex it could only have begun with divine intervention.

The full board could have weighed in Tuesday, but a two-hour time limit on the issue expired before the roll was taken.

Patricia Princehouse, evolution advocate and professor at Case Western Reserve University, said the achievement committee didn't run behind schedule by accident.

Princehouse said the committee ate up the two hours by rewriting minutes from July to remove from the public record any direct mention of intelligent design.

Steve Rissing, an Ohio State University professor and evolution backer, said the changes in the minutes are significant.

``The corrected minutes bear no resemblance to what I saw and what I heard,'' Rissing said.

The template's author, Colleen Grady, a board member from Strongsville, pushed during Monday's meeting to remove language referring to evolution, global warming, stem-cell research and cloning technologies that were in the original standards introduced in July.

The two scientists maintain Grady introduced these specific ideas in July and they were contained in the minutes assembled then, but the board's rewriting of those minutes has deleted references to these controversial ideas.

Grady could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

A review of a tape recording of the board's July meeting indicates Steve Millett, a member from Columbus, said the new curriculum should not challenge specific topics like evolution.

According to the tape recording, made available by the evolution backers, no members discussed global warming, cloning and stem-cell research during the July meeting, yet those issues appeared in the July minutes.
References to these ideas in the July minutes were removed by the board at Monday's meeting.

Grady refers to the controversial ideas without naming them during the July meeting.

``Some of the items that were thrown out here are straw men with this language -- some of them have generated far more interest than evolution,'' Grady said, according to the tape recording of the July meeting.

She went on to say there's an argument to be made whether the board should specifically address evolution when discussing controversial issues, but ``I think we'd be dodging it. It'd be the elephant in the corner'' if left unmentioned.

How very odd that you would chide me for 'not understanding and accepting' what the author clearly states is unknown to him.

It's a plausible hypothesis if you can set forth a method by which it could have happened.

Stating 'the process by which this took place is unknown' does not qualify as a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested.

You have no explanation set forth, just an assertion that it MUST have happened.

You're not even on first base, and you're claiming to be rounding third headed for home.

On the contrary , you show precious little concern for the HOW[/i], being very content to accept a comforting (to you) conclusion only with no HOW[/i] indicated.

The world isn't laughing with you, rl, its laughing at your proposition and the manner in which you present and defend that proposition.

You are so enamored of his prose that you parrot his lines without any qualms, but it takes more than a flowery sales pitch to make a good case.

real life wrote:

Neither RNA nor DNA can be produced without the actions of the proteins, especially enzymes.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are such things as enzymes made out of RNA. They're called ribozymes. They can catalyse their own cleave or that of other ribozymes.

Ribozymes don't need proteins and since RNA can also act as genetic material, RNA *IS* the xNA precursor you speak of.

It can also, catalyse its own formation, you know.

You'll probably stick your fingers in your ears once again and ignore the existence of these ribozymes.

1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

Lawmakers get more time to weigh in on science standards
(BY TIM MARTIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS, September 13, 2006)

LANSING -- State lawmakers will get more time to weigh in on what the state's public schools science curriculum should be and how it should approach the teaching of evolution under an agreement reached Tuesday.

The state Board of Education agreed to delay adopting new science guidelines -- part of Michigan's new high school graduation standards -- until its October meeting. That gives lawmakers a couple of extra weeks to present suggestions to the state board, which has the final say on what the curriculum should be.

State Superintendent Mike Flanagan told the board that his recommendations for the science curriculum would not change. But he said it's an important part of the process to give lawmakers time to make their suggestions to the board.

The law that called for legislative input on the curriculum standards did not specify how the comments from lawmakers is supposed to be gathered.

The delay was granted after the state board received letters requesting more time from Republican leaders on legislative education committees, Rep. Brian Palmer of Romeo and Sen. Wayne Kuipers of Holland.

"We have had a good relationship with them, and we want to continue having a good relationship," said board President Kathleen Straus, a Democrat.

The motion to delay action on the science curriculum passed by a 6-2 vote. Elizabeth Bauer and Marianne Yared McGuire, both Democrats, voted against it.

Critics of the delayed vote, including a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union, said some Republican lawmakers are trying to weaken state standards to allow some instruction about intelligent design in science classes.

Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Some want science teachers to teach that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact and has gaps.

Shelli Weisberg, ACLU of Michigan legislative director, urged the state board to adopt the science curriculum as recommended Tuesday, rather than grant the delay.

Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union.

"The bottom line is we want to make sure that the language is in there regarding critical thinking on all theories that are evident in science today, so that we are not blanking out any new theories that are coming along," Palmer said.

The state board already has passed some of its new curriculum standards, including those for math.

The board still must adopt standards for social studies and a few other subjects. Tuesday's agreement will set up a method to allow formal comments from the state Legislature on those standards.

I found Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?[/u] in particular quite interesting.

Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union.

Boot Pluto? Astrology's dismay off the charts
By Jane Spencer

The Wall Street Journal

The ruling by the world's top astronomers to boot Pluto from the planet category is sending shock waves through another set of dedicated stargazers: the world of astrologers, who are mulling how this turn of events might affect our moods, our lucky numbers and our chances of getting a date.

For weeks, astrologers have been buzzing about the proposal approved Thursday at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) general assembly in Prague, Czech Republic, that will recast the map of the solar system for the first time since 1930.

After days of impassioned debate, the astronomers voted to demote Pluto, the smallest of the nine planets, to a new class of solar-system bodies called "dwarf planets."

Astrologers think that the positions of the moon, sun and stars affect human affairs and that people born under the 12 signs of the zodiac tend to pick up qualities of the planets associated with those signs.

Some astrologers, including leaders of the American Federation of Astrologers and The Astrological Association of Great Britain, are standing by Pluto. They say they will continue to regard the icy orb as a full-blown planet with a powerful pull on our psyche, despite the astronomers' decision.

"Whether he's a planet, an asteroid, or a radioactive matzo ball, Pluto has proven himself worthy of a permanent place in all horoscopes," says Shelley Ackerman, columnist for the spirituality Web site Beliefnet.com. Ackerman criticized the IAU for not including astrologers in its decision.

Wall Street's best-known astrologer, Arch Crawford, 65, who has studied the effect of the planets on the Dow Jones industrial average, says, "I'm going to continue using it [Pluto]. They [astronomers] can stick it where the sun don't shine."

Thursday's ruling in Prague brought good news to some. The astronomers indicated several planetlike bodies ?- including the asteroid Ceres and the newly discovered UB313, nicknamed "Xena" ?- will also be classified as dwarf planets.

That has generated excitement among a small group of practitioners known as "minor-planet astrologers." They have long contended that outer-lying asteroids and ice balls exert a powerful tug on our psychological makeup.

Some astrologers think that officially introducing new dwarf planets to the charts might give astrologers additional information about people, by providing more planetary bodies and forces to study in the charts.

"This is a moment that I've been waiting for, for a long time," says Eric Francis, a minor-planet astrologer who edits the Web site Planetwaves.net. "People are finally talking about Charon." Charon is Pluto's largest moon, which astronomers briefly considered granting official planet status at the IAU meeting.

Francis and many other minor-planet enthusiasts are interested in raising awareness about Charon and the new dwarf planets, Ceres and UB313, in part because they consider them female planets symbolizing a rush of new maternal energy into the cosmos.

"Most of our clients are women, and we need stories women can relate to," Francis says.

A planet's gender is determined largely by the name given to it by astronomers.

StarIQ.com astrologer Michael Wolfstar suggests that the asteroid Ceres is a humanitarian, compassionate force "associated with relief operations, the food industry and parent-child relationships." According to the site, Ceres is currently pushing for "the return of refugees to southern Lebanon" and "reforms in the organic-milk industry."

The IAU decision had less impact on some older branches of astrology that ignore the influence of more recently discovered planets, such as Uranus (discovered in 1781) and Neptune (discovered in 1846).

In the Indian tradition of Vedic astrology, for example, astrologers generally use the first five planets: Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn. Modern astrologers, who account for an estimated 90 percent of U.S. practitioners, have long worked with a nine-planet system.

This is also not the first time a new discovery has rocked the astrology world. In 1977, astronomer Charles Kowal discovered Chiron, a comet between Saturn and Uranus. Some astrologers welcomed Chiron into the planetary fold and many still use it today.

Companies that make chart-reading software for astrologers are adjusting their products to include more information on dwarf planets. Astrolabe, an astrology-software company in Brewster, Mass., released a software patch this week for users that provides additional information on Ceres.

Horoscope columnists are wrestling with whether to incorporate the new dwarf planets into their chart readings.

Michael Lutin, columnist for Vanity Fair, says he will consider the newcomers. But he notes that they aren't likely to have massive impact on our personal lives because of their location in at the outer reaches of the solar system: "UB313 is never going to tell you whether Wednesday is good for romance."

real life wrote:

I found Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?[/u] in particular quite interesting.

What did you find interesting about it?

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

I think it not farfetched that they may soon claim DNA evolved, not twice, but numerous times independently[/u].

This line of reasoning could become necessary as more is learned about differences in the DNA that cannot be reconciled any other way.

Instead of questioning the basic premise of evolution, a larger shoehorn must be applied to keep the hypothesis 'intact'.

How many times do you think it possible for DNA to have 'evolved' independently?

real life wrote:

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

Based on evidence to that effect.

real life wrote:

I think it not farfetched that they may soon claim DNA evolved, not twice, but numerous times independently[/u].

This line of reasoning could become necessary as more is learned about differences in the DNA that cannot be reconciled any other way.

Or as the evidence begins to indicate that it happened.

real life wrote:

Instead of questioning the basic premise of evolution, a larger shoehorn must be applied to keep the hypothesis 'intact'.

You have a twisted view of things. There is no reason to question the basic premise of evolution, any more than to question the basic premise of a Sun centered solar system.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

Based on evidence to that effect.

What evidence is there that the eye evolved 40 times?

There are many types of eyes in different organisms. It is clear that they cannot have evolved from a common eye.

Why does that indicate that they evolved at all? It doesn't. It is the assumption of evolution which forces this conclusion, not evidence.

The sun can be observed to be at the center of the solar system. Evolution cannot be observed.

You insist that in science observation is not necessary, but yet you are the one twisting these examples to try to make them analogous. They are not.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

Based on evidence to that effect.

What evidence is there that the eye evolved 40 times?

You're the one who stated that "evolutionists" (ie, mainstream science) claimed it evolved 40 times or more, don't you know your own sources? Look it up.

Quote:

Sometimes common descent is strongly challenged by the data. Mayr recounts that "Photosensitive, eyelike organs have developed in the animal series independently at least 40 times…" (p. 205) It is incredible that such complexity would evolve "independently"?-again, similarity implies ancestry, except for when it doesn't. Even more significantly, Mayr finds that some of the same genes are used in eye construction despite the fact that these eyes supposedly evolved in completely separate lineages:

"It had been shown that by morphological-phylogenetic research that photoreceptor organs (eyes) had developed at least 40 times independently during the evolution of animal diversity. A developmental geneticist, however, showed that all animals with eyes have the same regulator gene, Pax 6, which organizes the construction of the eye. It was therefore concluded at first concluded that all eyes were derived from a single ancestral eye with the Pax 6 gene. But then the geneticist also found Pax 6 in species without eyes, and proposed that they must have descended from ancestors with eyes. However, this scenario turned out to be quite improbable and the wide distribution of Pax 6 required a different explanation. It is now believed that Pax 6, even before the origin of eyes, had an unknown function in eyeless organisms, and was subsequently recruited for its role as an eye organizer." (p. 113)

Mayr attempts to give a plausible evolutionary explanation for why so many types of organisms use the same genes - through completely independent evolution - to construct eyes. However, given that this identical usage of the Pax 6 gene supposedly evolved so many (40+) times in evolutionary history, it almost appears that life was "pre-destined" to evolve eyes in this manner. Mayr recounts that this independent evolution is not uncommon:

"That a structure like the eye could originate numerous times independently in very different kinds of organisms is not unique in the living world. After photoreceptors had evolved in animals, bioluminescence originated at least 30 times independently among various kinds of organisms. In most cases, essentially similar biochemical mechanisms were used. Virtually scores of similar cases have been discovered in recent years, and they often make use of hidden potentials of the genotype inherited from early ancestors." (p. 206-207)

Mayr attributes the re-usage of the same parts in distantly related organisms to "hidden potentials of the genotype" but one must ask if this is consistent with common descent? Again, similarities indicate homology, and thus common descent, except for when they don't.[/u]

I couldn't have said it better myself ( a rare occurrence )

To have one's cake and eat it too is essential for the evolutionist.

Quote:

Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union.

Funny.

Stupid, but funny.