Evolution in pieces.

quote:

---

Not theistic evolution- Design. Theistic evolution is in contrast with the current theory. If you would allow theistic evolution into the classroom you are half-way there.

---

Theistic evolution is allowed. Nobody is telling kids they can't believe in God, nobody is telling them they have to. Nobody says we know abiogenesis started the process, which means theistic evolution is never contradicted. Do you think it should be different?

quote:

---

Any evidence that those colonies became such via random mutations culled by NS? But anyway even those colonies still reproduce single-celled organisms. Most, if not all, colonies become so as a defensive/ survival mechanism.

---

Well, they produce single-celled organisms which, as Rei pointed out in the other thread, live exclusively in attached groups and have varying degrees of specialized function... which makes them almost the same as you and all the other multi-celled life around. This doesn't really help your case.Life is fluid. It overcomes boundaries and fills holes, divides and varies and competes with itself - and the blurred continuum from single-celled to multi-celled is just one good example.

The fact that frame-shift mutations occur all the time with deleterious or neutral effects is enough to lead one to that conclusion, I would think. When we see that they happen for no good reason, and that it usually ends badly for the organism involved, it's ludicrous to point to a particular one and assert design just because the results are good. They're not even well-designed - the enzyme is far less efficient than the original. It is selected naturally because there is no competition for that food. Evolution doesn't require perfection. It only requires something to work with.

kickmeiamadoublepostingbastard[This message has been edited by zephyr, 12-17-2003]

Goodness, I should hope not.This website is frozen.*courtesy of darwinsterrier