This is about a peer reviewed paper.

It's not peer reviewed; I looked it up and gave you a link.

All of you return to topic, thank you. That topic would be..."More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...", it's about science. I'll thank you ahead of time for not posting if you don't know the topic.

I know the topic and you can't defend it because your foundation is built on sand.

Jesus said

don't be like the foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.

It is peer reviewed. Thank you for not doing the correct thing. Thank you for not addressing the science. Thank you for attacking the source, the messenger, and etc, ect. You see all this is politics, it is not science. This is all you have shown anyone reading. You have not shown any science to rebuff the artical. You declare, thats all.

Thank you for the poltics. But you don't seem to know science and that is what this is about. Please return to topic, thank you. ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is written by a leading Intelligent Design supporter.
It is published by an Intelligent Design organisation.
It is peer reviewed by Intelligent Design supporters

I can only draw the logical conclusion it is Intelligent Design.

Therefore not Science,

This is about a peer reviewed paper.

It's not peer reviewed; I looked it up and gave you a link.

All of you return to topic, thank you. That topic would be..."More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...", it's about science. I'll thank you ahead of time for not posting if you don't know the topic.

I know the topic and you can't defend it because your foundation is built on sand.

Jesus said

don't be like the foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.

---

Well you say science but from my quote:

There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated

The scientists say it's political, who to believe?

This isn't about a book. Thank you for not knowing that. Thank you for the red harring. And thank you for applying politics. Well done!

This is about a peer reviewed paper. You don't have to agree with the science but politics shows nothing about science and everything about your intent.

Now, this is about science. If you know anything about science now would be a great time to apply what you know. Otherwise, you know nothing about the topic and you need to stop posting off topic posts. Thank you.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The topic here is clearly MARKED as "More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again..."

So what? Garbage in, garbage out. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. Your source is B.S. I proved it.

Yes you did.

---

All of you return to topic, thank you. That topic would be..."More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...", it's about science. I'll thank you ahead of time for not posting if you don't know the topic.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The topic here is clearly MARKED as "More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again..."

So what? Garbage in, garbage out. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. Your source is B.S. I proved it.

---

Well you say science but from my quote:

There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated

The scientists say it's political, who to believe?

---

Would you know about science?

I know self serving blog B.S. when I smell it. You obsessed people are all alike. You quote fake "science" papers. I looked up your "published" work. Anybody with $500 can be "published" as long as they follow the "guidelines" of the publisher.

Self published, self reviewed B.S.

---

Really? Care to elaborate? Would you know about science? You know the differance between science and politics? It would appear that many here do not know that differance. Perhaps you would like to define both and make the contrasts.

So far all I have seen in the responces here are politics. The piece is about science.

Really, attack the messenger. Done. First thing done as a matter of fact.

Really, attack the science. Done. Second thing done as a matter of fact.

Then there is the backing by "Other's" for the above. Really this passes for science here?

Well done! I applaud you all for knowing politics! Well done!

Now if you don't mind---the article is about science.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

OK

+1 *cough*

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Well I know little science, but I read Jonathan Wells article and find I don't quite grasp what he is saying, so I look on-line to try and find out a little about Jonathan Wells.

I find this is typical

Wells is best known for his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid. The book is rejected by many members of the scientific community and has received much criticism by those opposed to his views.There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."

So I have to decide, do I believe the link you have posted with absolutely no background information about Jonathan Wells. Or do I believe my own internet research on the man. As you obviously WANT people to do this, I believe what I have found is closer to the truth.

---

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

---

Reality Internet Personality

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

No, its the interpretation on a peer reviewed paper. And its conclusions are stupid.

"Oh, this can't be properly explained by this theory, therefor, that theory is wrong. But we got a much better theory, namely that everything is guided by some grand designer of which we have absolutely no further evidence. Yep thats the way to go guys."

Seems a bit early to declare Neo-Darwinian evolution dead and Intelligent Design the better theory.

From the piece..."Wells (the man who wrote the peer reviewed paper, Jonathan Wells) concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA."

I believe you need to reread the paper again and get a better grasp of what is and is not. Thank you for your time in this matter.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

No, its the interpretation on a peer reviewed paper. And its conclusions are stupid.

"Oh, this can't be properly explained by this theory, therefor, that theory is wrong. But we got a much better theory, namely that everything is guided by some grand designer of which we have absolutely no further evidence. Yep thats the way to go guys."

Seems a bit early to declare Neo-Darwinian evolution dead and Intelligent Design the better theory.

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Actually, in my opinion, both Darwinism and Intelligent Design make sense. Both in a different area of Science, that is. (No, I won't start on Humanities again...)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures