The Delicate Balance of Ear Crystals (Darwinist reductionism undermined by epigenetic development)

ICR ^ | December 9, 2008 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Hi guys and gals. I don’t have my ping list handy, so could you be so kind as to ping this to the appropriate FReepers. Thanks a bunch—GGG

[editor-surveyor]

I don’t have a list on this computer either.

[papasmurf]

Interesting. I have a problem with my left vestibular. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes, it's a very dizzying situation. LOL

[editor-surveyor]

Ping!

[papasmurf]

This list? Stentor; Marty; Fractal Trader; metmom; John Valentine; editor-surveyor; Mr Ramsbotham; Chode

[Filo]

I’m quite sure the UCLA researchers didn’t use their findings to dispute evolution.

Only those who can’t understand would do so. . .

[GodGunsGuts]

That’s part of my Rethinking AIDS list. I was speaking of my Creation/ID list. But thanks for trying :o)

All the best—GGG

[caveat emptor]

Read later. I’ll wait for the other shoe to drop.

[GodGunsGuts]

==I’m quite sure the UCLA researchers didn’t use their findings to dispute evolution.

Of course not. That must be left to scientists who have broken free from the Temple of Darwin’s materialist straightjacket.

[editor-surveyor]

Ping

[marktwain]

“Not only are otoliths complex (being a crystalline arrangement of matter), but their timed and directed formation must result in the correct placement, shape, number, and size for balance detection to work at all”

---

Gee.. the same tired old arguments that said an eye was too complex to evolve in incremental steps.

I suspect that on close examination, this conjecture will be shown to be false as well.

[editor-surveyor]

Ping!

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

The eye DIDN'T evolve in incremental steps. What are you on?

Kick the Kool-aid habit and start to use your brain!

[Coyoteman]

More anti-science nonsense, eh? You sure seem to specialize thusly.

[GodGunsGuts]

The eye is indeed too complex to evolve via random mutation and natural selection. The irrationality award goes to those that believe that Darwin’s brain-dead natural selection god can assemple super-sophisticated biological nano-machines that merely give the “appearance” of design.

[1955Ford]

I would rather not see FreeRepublic turned into a Creationist forum. There are probably better places for these posts.

[marktwain]

“The eye is indeed too complex to evolve via random mutation and natural selection. The irrationality award goes to those that believe that Darwin’s brain-dead natural selection god can assemple super-sophisticated biological nano-machines that merely give the “appearance” of design.”

---

I have seen the arguments “evolve” as each of the anti-evolution arguments were destroyed.

It is true that we do not know just how the first cells came into being.

But, given a reproducing cell, evolution hangs together better than any other theory.

Evolution is not about first beginnings. It is about the origin of species by natural selection. If you want to argue that a creator created the first cells a few billion years ago, fine. I will not argue with that possibility. If you want to say that a creator created the universe, with all the fossils intact and the physical evidence for an "old" earth and universe, 6000 years ago, fine. I don't want to destroy your faith.

[Coyoteman]

I would rather not see FreeRepublic turned into a Creationist forum. There are probably better places for these posts.

Too late. The purge of the scientists and other rational thinkers a couple of years ago settled that issue.

[tpanther]

I would rather not see FreeRepublic turned into a Creationist forum. There are probably better places for these posts.

How very odd. I think most FReepers would much rather this not turn into a site for apologists for the godless liberal NEA agenda.