"I know what mutations are, I have seen grose distortions of plants."
This seems to re-affirm my first point more than anything else, ie. that you mostly see the more obvious physical mutations which are more likely to be disadvantageous than neutral or beneficial (whose effects may be inconspicuous), especially in those conditions.

Now.. we have established :

1/ There is more hot air being generated here than from LawYang's steam turbines
2/ Evolution (as in origins) takes as much faith to believe (more I'd say) than any other spin on things.
3/ The chances of academically persuading either side of the merits of the other are similar to those of a snowflake in hell not melting.

So, we now understand why Paul didn't give a 17th chapter in Romans devoted to 'origins'. His starting point in Romans 1 was

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Now, here is a man who dragged young and old people off to prison, to execution, to torture..... who went on a journey to execute arrest warrants on "deluded Christians" on a road to Damascus..... 'converted'. "err. who are u, Lord ?".. "I am Jesus who you are persecuting"...

From a 'Sadaam' to 'Savior' overnight. His new theme is: (from his own hand by the way)
Romans 15
5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My my..what a change...strange how the debate here pales into insignificance as I consider this :)

Hardly, Boaz.

>>[we have established] "[t]here is more hot air being generated here than from LawYang's steam turbines"<<

Last time I checked it was called Loy Yang. A small quibble, but significantly indicative of your attention to detail.

>>[we have established] "[e]volution (as in origins) takes as much faith to believe (more I'd say) than any other spin on things."

Evolution is "spin" Boaz? "Spin"? If evolution is "spin", and is based upon a substantial number of scientific observations made over many decades, how would you categorize intelligent design, which is a recently-postulated theory, based on precisely zero evidence? Comparing the two side-by-side, I know which position takes less "faith" to believe.

>>[we have established] "[t]he chances of academically persuading either side of the merits of the other are similar to those of a snowflake in hell not melting."

The mistake in this sentence is the use of the word "academically". If the debate were to be conducted on purely "academic" grounds, with a set of clear rules as to what form of evidence is acceptable, I doubt that there would be a discussion at all. The fact that there may be one or more "academics" taking part in the discussion does not invalidate this - to date, they have provided no more useful contributions than their "non-academic" brethren.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, what is your source for comparing Paul to Sadaam Hussain? From what I was told all those years ago, he was a pretty ordinary kind of bloke. Of course, if you want to put some "spin" on it, you would need to accentuate the before-and-after, like those ads for slimming regimes, wouldn't you?

Enquiring minds await your response.

<MichaelK,
My definition of "robust design" of the species envisages the optimum specimen of that gene pool.

Not sure what you mean by: Quote, "A “robust design” is a figure of imagination of those privileged to inherit employment in Australia (read: in a UK sphere of its active interferece) to be paid for tales of genes and like-stuff in advance making the rest of undercaste people being idiots incapable to do something but sex-services and simple lackey duties."

1. What relavence to genetics does priviledged to inherit employment in Australia Mean?
2. What is active interferece mean? [My dictionary does not contain this word]
3. What are tales of genes?
4. Are the UK developing a low intelligence social underclass to perform as sex and menial duties slaves?

Posted by Philo, Sunday, 11 September 2005 7:51:50 PM>

Dear Philo,

Were your questions answered? Eventually, YES.

"YngNLuvnIt,
'I'd like to see that actually, do you have somewhere you could refer me to?'
So you are willing to concede that you would not be able to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation?"

By this you seem to imply that I entered this forum wanting to prove something (a reasonable alternative explanation). I didn't, but as I've said, I don't think evolution is a proven theory of the origin of the species. I wanted to draw attention to that, especially to those who had already taken it as an assumed fact (and thus had already pre-set their minds on what should be taught in the school syllabus).

I wanted you to give me something specific to analyse, but you didn't (but that's OK, I can understand why that was an issue- finding something basic, etc.).

It has been said that these "progressive fossils" show giant leaps in them, i.e. gaps, which, as I said, doesn't ncessarily mean they are NOT transitional, it just means there is little to show that they are.

Another thing- people argue that evolution is falsifiable but hasn't yet proven false, therefore its most likely true. Does anyone else see a problem with that logic?

My thoughts.

But anyway, I guess I'll see most of you guys in article # 167... bye!