To which Jim replied
>>This is an obvious gambit, but one you've yet to excel in.<<
Thank goodness I haven't learned to excell in Lawyer tricks. I was
worried there for a while. Thank you for immensely cheering me up. :-)
Jim wrote:
>>But on this 'limits' idea you still need to give us some citations to the
biochemical literature. Something. Anything<<
As I have mentioned innumerable times you can not prove a negative. I can
not, nor can anyone prove that there are NO limits. There will be no article
for that. But you or someone on your side can prove there ARE limits simply
by demonstrating in an experiment which attempts to take a species in a
certain direction and fails repeatedly to do so. You must take care to rule
out the possibility of a zig-zag path to get to the objective. Such a concept
is not out of the question.
Now, I have answered your question, why won't you answer the
question I posed in the last post. Why do you not want this burden of proof
on the Creationist side? Are you afraid that there are no limits?
(note to the lurkers: I have not seen Jim answer this question. If he has
would someone point it out to me.)
glenn