LOL...I beg to differ. I am a Jack Reacher afficianado...I've read the 14 or so Lee Child books with Reacher as the hero. Reacher is 6'5, 260 or so. Cruise...isn't. I can't believe they cast that little twerp in the role of a very large physical man.

I hope they make a Reacher movie that I can watch...which by definition will be without Cruise.

Jim

Love it Russ: took the Baron out for a spin , well dinner and a movie.
Awesome!
I liked the movie as well for what it was: pure entertainment.

I'm sure this won't be allowed to go far. But your supposition requires much more faith than Ron's. Especially now, with the advances in molecular biology and protein sequencing.

It is now known that there is no molecule that can reproduce itself without the involvement of many other critical molecules. Many have mistakenly believed that DNA molecules in isolation can somehow replicate themselves. They cannot.

I like the way Michael Denton phrases it:
There is no continuum of functional forms through which the gradual evolution of the cell might have occurred--just a yawning gulf which can only be crossed in one vastly improbable leap.

He adds:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

Regardless of responses, I won't address this again. But I was not able to let the statement go unchallenged.

People think creationism is the only opinion that requires faith?

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. What part of my earlier statement did you challenge? I did not mention the origin of replicators at all.

I honestly think my earlier statement stands undamaged.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. What part of my earlier statement did you challenge? I did not mention the origin of replicators at all.

I honestly think my earlier statement stands undamaged.

I hope you can find a way to read my posts without offense. None is intended.

Faith is not useful nor needed for understanding things. I think it means "trust, but don't verify," or "I claim to know unknowable things," or perhaps, "Trust me, I just know!" So it is antithetical to discovery and knowledge. It is a great tool for absorbing or adopting the beliefs of others, though.

Knowing of no better way to do it, my intention is to understand the evidence, wherever it goes. I sincerely hope to find evidence that forces me to reevaluate all that I know. My supposition is only that the scientific method gives us our best chance to find those things and to understand our reality. Even that supposition is subject to change, if some better/other method is ever shown to work.
So he's confused. Gaps in knowledge are confusing. But he's not talking about evolution here, he's wondering how the first replicators came to be.

To the extent that Dr. Denton and others have used the scientific method to look for answers, I applaud that. We all benefit from attacking the scientific consensus from every angle. It is part of the scientific method and it helps to keep it/us honest.

That said, there really have been no working scientific arguments against the fact that evolution occurs, in the broad sense. Dr. Denton does not dispute this when he argues against the consensus view that there has been enough time and breadth to allow it all to play out. He thinks that the most improbable parts were given some external help here and there. Will he find evidence to support this idea?
Probably the most important discovery of science is that "seems like a miracle!" is not the same thing as "miracle!"

Dr. Denton's (and our) difficulties understanding how the first replicators came to exist, do not change the fact that evolution has been happening ever since. After Dr. Denton shows any evidence of his particular form of evolution (directed-evolution), I'll be both impressed and interested, but not before.

Hi Tony,
What is your theory of how the first replicators came to exist?

LOL...I beg to differ. I am a Jack Reacher afficianado...I've read the 14 or so Lee Child books with Reacher as the hero. Reacher is 6'5, 260 or so. Cruise...isn't. I can't believe they cast that little twerp in the role of a very large physical man.

I hope they make a Reacher movie that I can watch...which by definition will be without Cruise.

Jim

Bill: It's all good. You ought to read the books. Good mindless violent reads all. For the rest...PM coming~No secrets, just wanna not hijack this...err...excellent...thread.

To close this ever-widening circle, just because you see Tom Cruise hanging onto an airplane in flight in a movie doesn't mean the guy, ballsy as he seems to be, is capable of this feat without a bit of hidden engineering. Tom's being down with the Thetans isn't keeping him from splatting. Dual redundant cables are. Still a pretty impressive stunt, and all the more for him doing it himself. An impressive illusion, but an illusion all the same.
Similarly, biological complexity seems to require the existence of a hidden engineer, a "creator". How the heck else can you explain DNA? But this is also an illusion. Problems in biological complexity are handily solved through the application of deep time and evolution. That we have a hard time seeing that is a function of our very short-term viewpoint. But science lets us to see further into the past, the future and gives us the language to describe our present in ways that peel away those illusions. Which is why science and religion have such a tetchy history.
Robin

Don't want to disrespect the Jeff's intent...

I'll just say, I love science, loathe religion and live by faith.

Sorry, I don't know. I don't yet have any good reason to believe it was fairies though.

It's a very technical field of study. I don't know it well enough to come up with my own new ideas. I'd probably wager metabolism first, then RNA, but I remain undecided.

Saw an A400 on the ramp in LAS today. Wasn't expecting to see that!

Mega-Ditto!

Even with wires have you ever tied something to the side of your car and driven 60 miles and hour? It does not ride sedately alongside your car. It catches wind and beats the paint off the quarter panel.

Is he hanging at more then 150 Kts without glasses to the side of the plane with his mouth and EYES open. Did I say without glasses.

Here is a face at 150 MPH.



Full Video:
http://youtu.be/5tahr2KCWUY