Re: Dawkins, bacteria, Tibetans, fish, etc.

Hey Susan,

Argh again! Lol. I can't believe you said that all I did was belittle the author of Genetic Entropy! I went to great pains not to make an ad hominem attack on him because I know that bothers you, and I agree that that can be just a distraction! I gave you the reasons I disagreed with the book in one email. It was only later when you lionized him by calling him respected (the opposite of ad hominem and clearly containing the same issues) that I pointed out that I was not impressed with his pedigree. It's as if in every point I make, you miss the point. I think it's on purpose! Anyways, my main objection with the book was that it was very boring, and I didn't find the logic of many of his arguments sound, and it was taking a very long time to get to the point. Yes, only the second objection is sound scientifically, but I'm more than a scientist! I'm a human in his twenties! And I won't read a book that boring!

My next point is that IN his book, he claims that positive genetic changes are nearly impossible and just don't happen in nature. This claim is falsified by the bacteria test that we discussed. I was NOT trying to prove evolution with one test. There is clearly not such a thing out there. I was only trying to point out that his claim is wrong, and that experiment was only one example of of that. THAT is the point. Get it???

Anyways, thousands of generations doesn't take a long time when it comes to bacteria, and nearly every surface on earth is covered with it. So one could assume that a lot of evolution is happening at this moment with bacteria. 

As for your questions, Susan, I don't know. I just don't know why you think the oceans would have more salt. I just don't know why molecules are left-handed, and I may never be able to answer that question since I'm not a chemist. I'm not even interested in that question. I hope you'll try to answer it yourself. 

As for you mocking the article because it does a poor job of proving evolution, you again are missing the point. It is trying to prove nothing. The article ASSUMES evolution is true and ASSUMES it's readers agree with that. That's how lonely you are out there Susan. Mainstream articles just aren't written with you in mind. Anyways scientific journalsists don't try to prove anything. They just report on what scientists are currently talking about. 

-Brandon