Evolution is a belief system. Natural selection and variation within a species is a fact.

Devolution is also a fact. Errors in the replication of the genetic code produce flaws in the organism. That is why we lost our tails - devolution - an error. that is why the appendix is unneeded - devolution - an error. Why we are so smart compared to the other apes - our offspring fail to mature at a reasonable rate, thus allowing for a great length of time for imprinting and learning - devolution - an error. Our intelligence is a flaw.

The factual agents of change are extinction and devolution. Show me a new species that has naturally evolved a new and significant useful structure within recorded history?

Most species haven't changed significantly for millions of years and for species for which there is a fossil record, are there not more species in the past than in the present? This clearly means that evolution is not a generalized principle and even evolutionists agree. If evolutions was core and fundamental, why wouldn't we see it? There are "bursts" of evolution according to the current view and some say that it is due to the eccentricities of the solar orbit around the galaxy. That is a lot of millions of years before the theory can be labeled as fact.

The agent of speciation, is just as much hokum and bunk as genesis. Evolution is a religion dressed up like a science. Tom Cruise?

Perhaps the RNA/DNA/Ribosome systems are both the code and the coder through feedback mechanisms as of yet unknown. That makes more sense than simply errors in the coding process.

How valuable and useful are most mutations to higher life forms?

If we were offered the chance to have one for ourselves or our children, I think most of us would pass that evolutionary "advantage" up.

No matter what you think of science, you are still getting your ideas from other apes, devolved or otherwise.

Nowabout all those "evolving" bacteria and viri - well, if they are evolving, should they be at least multicellular organism by now?

Since the creationists shook their tree, evolutionists now use the term to describe ANY change, whereas before, evolution only meant EVOLVING. They lack faith in their own religion. The Pope might as well say, all the mystical mumbo jumbo was made up, but that isn't the point, BELIEVING it is the point.

But, that would be the truth and no one in religion could speak that.

"First we evolved to have tails because that was an advantage, then we evolved to have no tails because that was an advantage."

Have your cake and eat it too!

Science ain't what it used to be.

ARE WE NOT MEN?

D=E=V=O

Anti Science??? Has anyone noticed how "convenient" the environmental position is. If anything bad happens (and it always will) they can say "we told you so". If anything apocalyptic fails to happen (and it always fails to happen) they have two possibilities:

If their policies are not adopted they will claim that a temporary cooling cycle has given us a reprieve and that doom is still just around the corner. If their policies have been adopted they will pose as the saviors of humanity. This is like claiming credit for the sunrise. Like the statement "God Exists" the global warming hypothesis is not falsifiable and hence, not a scientific statement at all. It is a statement of faith and the sacrifice that faith demands is much more harsh than a little bread and wine. Considering the effect of "biofuels" on world food prices, it is fair to call "global warming" a human sacrifice religion.

delosgatos has shown us the subtle difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis".

The greenhouse hypothesis is just that: a yet to be validated hypothesis or postulation. GCMs (computer climate models) do not validate a hypothesis. It takes physically observed hard data to validate the greenhouse hypothesis, and this is lacking today.

To follow the lead article author's suggestion to base far-reaching and exremely costly policy decisions on an unproven hypothesis "just in case" is absurd.

For those who want evidence that statistcally the temperature over the past 10 years has been stable, check the Kesten C. Green and J Scott Armstrong paper “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” Energy and Environment 18, 7/8, 2007 and compare the two charts.

Also it is worth noting that IPCC’s forecasts made in 2000 have been significantly too high so far. When confronted with this fact IPCC representatives in Norway said that the oceanic currents El Niño and La Niña have been stronger than expected and that the effect of reduced sun spots have stabilized the temperature. What is not said is that IPCC so far has not included either sunspots or cosmic radiation in their models.

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

I stand by my statement that most current climate models are flawed and inaccurate because they do not take into account the effects of solar radiation or water vapor.

It's more than a little silly to argue that bulk of the global warming deniers are anti-science. After all, these corporations and the scientists they support promote scientific research and depend on it in their operations every day. Rather, this about capitalism and capitalists who by the very nature of the econimic system will make changes only to the extent that markets necessitate or force upon them. Politicians represent these capitalists. Liberals are congenitally incapable of facing this political-economic reality and thus throw around labels such as anti-science. And the rest of us suffer some more for it.

The hypothesis that terrorists will try to attack us again is just that: a yet to be validated hypothesis or postulation. Previous terrorist attacks do not validate a hypothesis. It takes physically observed hard data to validate the terrorist hypothesis, and this is lacking today.

To follow the suggestion to base far-reaching and extremely costly policy decisions on an unproven hypothesis "just in case" is absurd.