Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID:[i] All true, but only covers small modifications in his research which is limited within bacteria and nothing more. Please note that most scientific journals do not accept quotes from Wikipedia which is notoriously slanted by biases that are entered from a multitude of uncontrolled sources. But what you presented is OK.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]His[/i] [Shapiro’s] [i]theory is not confined to small modifications! Same source:[/i] 
> > "[i]Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James Shapiro to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution.[/i]"
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]All based on bacterial studies and therefore an unproven extrapolation. I've read the book.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Then you should have known that his theory was not confined to “small modifications” but to novelty, which is what enables evolution to progress. And I keep acknowledging, as below, that ALL the theories are unproven, including your own. If they were proven, they would be facts.
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Novelty, not small modifications. But of course it’s an unproven theory – just as your divine preprogramming and dabbling is an unproven theory. You refuse to consider it, though, because it conflicts with your fixed belief.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You are unfixed and I am fixed. That is why we debate[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: On that we can agree!:-)
> 
> So the debate will continue :-|