Paul -

"Getting in the way of evolution" does not mean "makes evolution more improbable," or even magnitudes! more! improbable!

This becomes even more clear when one reads the entire article disussing that NINETY PERCENT OR MORE of the offspring still carry the defective gene and that the mystery material we "don't even have a name for" is, most likely, what some people have already named "RNA."

The only commonality between what you assessed the article as saying and what it actually says are they both use words from the English language.

As for the origins of life, as has been pointed out, that has naught to do with evolution. I don't claim to know precisely how life originated, nor have I claimed such, but I do know that evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life.

If you want to redefine evolution to suit your own argument, go for it, but ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty don't exactly make for a good debate.

"And that is what annoys me the most about the "evolution zealots." They are so smug and condescending, like they have all then answers, when in reality they don't have any clue either. "

I absolutely agree with this.

There is far more about our world that we still don't know or understand, science isn't all knowing.

Andy... Andy... ANDY... ANDY

You just wrote:

"Getting in the way of evolution" does not mean "makes evolution more improbable,"

Come on Andy... What part of paraphrasing do you not understand?

You are making a fool of yourself.

Sigh:

"but I do know that evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life."

So Does Jerry Falwell Andy, So does Jerry Falwell.

Totally OT, but I just had to say that I attend Purdue. We occasionally do cool things.

I want to know WHY life originated.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Well, that's settled then. *whew!*

Sorry, Paul, but I think you're projecting. It's ok though - it's one of those self-defence mechanisms we have. Probably has some benefit against selection pressures. ;)

Allow me to paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

"I do not think that article means what you think it means."

The sad thing is that there are actually good arguments to be had against evolution, but gene repair mechanisms are not one of them.

Any, look up homochirality or the law of mass action or genetic drift or methods of dating rocks... all of those topics have irregularities that you could harp on and no one could prove you wrong because of gaps in our knowledge... but seriously, genetic repair mechanisms?

"I do not think that article means what you think it means."

hmmmm I said it shows how we don't know jack about how all this stuff works.

Now if you DO know the origin of the species and can prove it then I will, of course, be wrong.

Feel free to post your proof here in the comments.

Paul -

I'll do so as soon as you stop trying to confuse the argument by mixing ideas such as "we don't know jack," "we found something interesting," and "explain the origin of the species."

No one, to my knowledge, has claimed that we understand everything about how evolution proceeds - but we do know it proceeds. Your questions are like someone asking apples to not fall from trees while we figure out the mechanisms of gravitation.

In short, you are either ignorantly or intentionally propping up happy little strawmen that you can bravely topple, and I refuse to play such games.

Have a nice day.

P.S. Me, a wingnut? That's rich, considering the source.

Paul -

Sadly, though, you aren't free to redefine evolution to mean what you want it to mean for the sake of your argument - at least not if you want a meaningful debate on the topic. Of course, you didn't want that at all, or you would have used the accepted definitions and not the "Paul's Made-Up Definitions."

Further, given that the article in question does not use evolution to mean what you seem to think it means, your entire response to the article - based on a definition that no one but you seem to be using - is pretty pointless.

Color me unimpressed.

Andy

Congratulations. Wizbang!'s evolution confusion is now a topic over on my own blog.

P.S. People who know more about the subject than either you or I are making you look pretty silly over at my site. You might want to make up your own definitions for some more key terms to find a way out of it.

Andy is quite correct Paul. I can't blame you for following up with a topic that is generating high traffic and getting linked. But I feel bad in that those links and numbers are elicited at the expense of your credibility and expense.

Ah, ~DS~ has appeared to share his throw up with this thread, too.

Evolution zealots?

how funny and how weak. The proof you seek has been available for some time in the various print media.

'So Does Jerry Falwell Andy, So does Jerry Falwell'

That is so sad as to make one feel for the author.

Andy, you were spot on when you said:

"Sadly, though, you aren't free to redefine evolution to mean what you want it to mean for the sake of your argument - at least not if you want a meaningful debate on the topic. Of course, you didn't want that at all, or you would have used the accepted definitions and not the "Paul's Made-Up Definitions."

Further, given that the article in question does not use evolution to mean what you seem to think it means, your entire response to the article - based on a definition that no one but you seem to be using - is pretty pointless."

Next week, he's going to change the definition of dissent to "eating babies" in order to criticize it.

Will someone get Paul a dictionary? PLEASE?

Look it's simple. Paul is completely, objectively, open to anyone who would like to present evidence for common descent or evolutionary theory, except zealots, and by zealots he means anyone who is willing to present evidence for evolutionary biology ...