Debating, discussing, and questioning is good yes. But there is no reason to attack your doctor, using your metaphor. Assuming your doctor metaphor is directly in response to my comment, you are assuming that Charlie, or anyone with an opinion different than yours for that matter, is insane and has no clue what they are talking about.
You proved my point by neglecting most of what I said, and clearly stating your own bias.

Incorrect. New processes have been observed being initiated (lactose tolerance, strictly unicellular algae become strictly 8 celled balls of algae, new muscles in lizards, new lengths of gut in lizards, new bones structures), new organisms, by this you mean speciation, yes it has been observed, so has the formation of new genera. Natural selection may be a trivial effect for you. It is not such a trivial effect when a population is placed under selective pressure.

As for the last poster above me, you have obviously never attempted to have anything published or defend your thesis. Science is very much about having everything 100% in accordance the scientific method. This applies to the terminology as well. I will assume that if your doctor came in and proclaimed that your washer bearings were not intact and that he needed to remove your eyes to fix them, you would likely not agree that this was the best course of action?

The second that Charlie commented on how the article was not absolutely perfect, you jumped down his throat, dubbing him a creationist, and attack his every word! Whichever side is actually right, you guys will not soon find out because you won’t even listen to the other without bias.

Judge each comment with a bias against it, or don’t judge at all. sheesh. this is science, not politics!

Now let’s see, I know, how about screening for mutations in regulatory regions of hox genes in flatfish and other species. After finding such mutations, one could then theoretically perform transgenic experiments to demonstrate direct morphological effects and selection coefficients. This approach could even potentially help determine the order and timing of the important mutation events.

Now, until such experiments are performed what should we do? Should we conclude that very well known processes observed countless times in many other species could also be operatinig in flatfish evolution? Or, should we do like like Charlie and throw our hands up in the air and quit, just because we don’t have every little detail of this particular example worked out yet.? I know which alternative I will choose.

Global warming is a fact period. It’s partly normal and partly our doing.
What the end effect will be and what we should do about it is another.
I’ve never been an alarmist, but I come to my own conclusions, and spent way too much time researching my own facts.

The real problem is everything gets politicized and confounded, to be polite. That our leaders are Lying asshats and we’re blind 1D10Ts is closer to truth.

But the fact is Humanity can’t deal with reality, so we live with Fantasia.
Mine is that my wife could never love another…

Yours is that there’s a big old guy in the clouds…

Who’s crazy, who’s sane ? depends….The Golden Rule applies…

Cheers.

And greed? You gotta be kidding me. Voluntary anti-consumerism, self-restraint, and growth restriction? For an entire civilization? An entire planet? The message is as pure anti-greed as anti-greed can get.

Great post and great summary of the paper and background

-Ottawa U

I guess you’ve never heard of Al Gore’s global warming… lol