Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dave.Norton
Alas, I see a hole in your argument; you are looking at the current state of a mechanism, removing a feature and seeing that it fails, then proposing that the mechanism couldn't have developed. I think all that you have demonstrated is that it didn't follow that specific path. Along this same line watching the news of late I find I have more in common genetically with a male chimp than I do with the lady working down the hall, how is that for irony? I suspect she might agree... Anyway, let’s go back to string theory, it may not be enough of an explanation to really qualify as a theory yet, but it is interesting.
|
Agreed. I personally am intrigued by string theory. I anxiously await further development(s) in this field. I also agree this is a thread about string theory, not creationism and evolution. If there were a forum on this board that lent it's self to that discussion that is where this discussion would belong. That is a discussion that could quite easily continue at infinitum.
(BTW, You say that there is a hole in my logic. If there is, then explain, using evolutionary principles, how the clotting mechanism developed from a one celled organism to what it is today. I would love to understand how such a complex process could have developed without any errors in the process throughout it's development cycle.) Oops, I digress. Sorry, feel free to PM me if you want with the explanation. This thread (string
) has drifted far enough