Alex, the example you provided with the peppered moths is an example of variation within the genome. The rest is the same sort of unwarranted extrapolation that Darwin [and countless other believers] have used to support the hypothesis that this constitutes an information producing mechanism.

To take this back to the Kansas school-board controversy, their statement that "natural selection can maintain or delete genetic variation..." is what has been empirically demonstrated.

It IS scientifically valid, yet was the basis for all the media up-roar and the sky-is-falling rhetoric from the psuedo-scientific establishment, ie NAS [National Academy of Sciences].

Are they protecting science or their religion?

Brian

• Of course, this is information producing. - alexander - May 16, 2001 - 20:46 UTC
  • not so fast... - isaiaha41 - May 18, 2001 - 19:39 UTC
    • Growth produces information - yanniru - May 21, 2001 - 12:03 UTC
      • the meaningful definition - isaiaha41 - May 22, 2001 - 03:29 UTC
        • You need a new word - yanniru - May 22, 2001 - 11:45 UTC
          • Random change IS new information. Enviroment decides how useful. - alexander - May 22, 2001 - 15:54 UTC
          • Big Bang - isaiaha41 - May 28, 2001 - 22:06 UTC
            • Triangulation and the speed of light - yanniru - May 29, 2001 - 12:10 UTC
              • Parallax measurements are simple. - alexander - May 30, 2001 - 22:54 UTC
                • thank you both - isaiaha41 - June 2, 2001 - 11:37 UTC
                  • It is not a premise - yanniru - June 2, 2001 - 12:46 UTC