Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 10, 2009, 23:02 (5351 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> > Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved.
> 
> 
> The more complexity we find the more likely that an enormous number of contingencies will be required, by which I mean the necessary chance events to make that complexity, could not have happened by chance mutations alone. The odds for the reqired chance mutations increase exponentially. I firmly believe the DNA?RNA code guides evolution and drives it forward.-But if we are the result of accrued changes (which you don't deny), what on earth is there even to argue about? -Epigenetics discusses changes to phenotype that aren't the result of DNA translation. This is still evolution to me. I guess I don't see the point that you keep trying to drive home about all this...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"