Orogeny: Please don’t laugh. Here is the link.
darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_04.html
Zian: “Every scientist will agree with the bolded portion of this statement. In fact, it is what they are doing when they are doing their research”
That’s all I’m saying too.
But I’m trying to make the point that amongst scientists there does not appear to be unanimity, as some would imply to other posters here.
Which was why I said I liked this idea:
“Punctuated Equilibrium:
They noticed that the fossil record could be better interpreted by long periods of species stasis with shorter periods of species change." - (this is one observation that I like)”
Ortho: “I am often puzzled by the insistence that modern natural science relies on Darwin.”
Hello Ortho. Yes, it is not so much Darwin and his theory which are the problem, as the age that they were released into society. Evolution as an idea, was made sound like a universal truth long before there was any real science, - as you would recognize science.
It was accepted, or foisted on the population some might say, before anyone, least of all Darwin, could say with hand on heart, that it was true.
That is what science inherited, and the point I make is that Evolution has now fragmented into all sorts of special evolutionary ideas, and divisions, as a result.
And all still continue along the evolutionary tramlines – are there really no choices other than, Literal 6 Day Creationists or Man from Bacteria…we might not know everything yet….
GENOMICS & PROTEOMICS
REED BUSINESS INFORMATION
“Being Naïve Is A Start
While satisfied with the progress made to date in genomics, Eric Green does not hold back with a call for modesty: “We have been obsessed with genes, finding them, and all of that . . . in reality, I think we will look back on these days of sweat and hard work . . . and we will say ‘boy was that easy’ because we are so, so, so naïve about the remaining functional part of the human genome. That’s the noncoding part.” One major challenge, Green says, is that “we simply do not know what we are looking for.” While there are rules that govern what a gene sequence should be, such as codons, start, and stop sequences as well as computer tools to find them, the genes, says Green, are going to turn out to be only a minority of the functionally important part of the human genome. Mouse-human comparisons reveal that 5% of the human genome is functionally important, and one- third of that sequence is composed of protein-coding genes. “We have been so fixated on genes and now we are waking up to realize that genes are going to be less than half the story, maybe only a third of the story,” he says. “
Appreciate the compliment buddie though I’ll still wear my dress. 
I’m like every hard working woman that tries to get the job done. (A serious labor of love and moments of fun with its occasional headache. 
) I’ve worked for giants from around the world. Blame it on them for nicke naming me ‘princess barracuda’ or ‘Mom’, though I :tiphat: off to 'em for having taught me a thing or two, don’t get me wrong, there’s 100% femme flowing through my sensitive, blue blood. After hours, I’m a dancing mush cake.
(All interested parties may contribute too.)
