No. of Recommendations: 0
Would you ingest a new chemical compound just because some scientist says he thinks it is "plausible" that it could cure your gout?

Wouldn't you require a little more scientific approach, say testing (at minimum), and a thorough understanding of the chemical interactions of the compound and the cells in your body (at best)?


Let's not forget that evolution is the default position already. It is a hugely successful and well-confirmed theory for many different reasons. It is the rule, not the exception, and even Behe wouldn't disagree with this.

That we're all descended from a common ancestor is seriously not disputed by just about any serious scientist, including Behe.

The idea that evolution works everywhere else but is impossible in a few special cases, which therefore require the use of (unobserved) supernatural forces, is the extraordinary claim.

Why is "scaffolding" and the like given such a huge pass? Why is scaffolding (which to my knowledge has no observed evidence)

The loss of useless parts is observed, as Joe pointed out. That's all scaffolding is.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement