Re: *Physical Constants

From: Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 10:59:16 EST

  • Next message: David Campbell: "Re: what comes next-the chicken or the fox?"

    Jeff
    >
    > I commend your effort. Once you have worked your way through
    > BIO 121, keep going further in, further up.
    **********
    Actually I have studied biology at a much higher level but this book is
    a good way to see how it is presented this day especially as to
    evolution. Dawkins is clearly presented as the answer and his result is
    presented as dogma and this is why this book is useful for examination.

    Fortunately, much of the real issues in the creation vs. evolution
    debate are accessable to generally educated and intelligent persons but
    it would be helpful to have a phd in physics, biology, biochemistry,
    hebrew, philosophy, religion, etc.

    Unfortunately, it sometimes takes someone outside the mainstream to
    point out the emporers satorical defficiences.

    >
    As to homeobox genes, I guess I will have to devote a day to finishing
    the book. I actually asked earlier on this line for comments. What I
    have obtained is the view that there may be something that turns
    assemblies on or off and the evidence for example is that sometimes
    organisms are born with an extra limb or a missing brain. There is a
    very weak or no case that this is the missing invention mechanism, only
    control.

    It strikes one that this is the "next great thing." that is, "eureka,
    now we have found it, the real secret to evolution." Funny thing when I
    was in high school the "prebiotic soup" was taught as dogma and many
    non-evolutionists did not see the evidence for such a mass. Now, the
    "next great thing" is that actually life began in holes in the ground or
    came from Mars.

    Bert M.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 14 2000 - 11:05:21 EST