“Intelligent Bioinformatics” by Edward Leedwell and Ajit Narayanan

No, it’s not an ID book. Basically it’s detailing the use of artificial intelligence in bioinformatics. Essentially the thesis is that random brute force searches are not sufficient tools to make sense of all the biological data being created today, so “artificial intelligence” programs might be more useful. Check it out.

Does anyone know if experiments with “de-evolution” have been tried?

As for memes in the comments. I think memes are psuedoscience also, and can’t seem to think why Dr. Dawkins holds on to the concept other than to enforce his atheism. Seems like he is searching for something to validate his atheism…

“I always admired atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith.” – Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider

“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” – Norman Geisler

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Hav.....1581345615

All Dawkin’s reasoning is based upon his preconceived pretense & wishes that there be no God. Therefore all his “reasonings” go wrong right there.
His foundation is wrong so the whole structure is faulty.

The man is incapable of thinking outside his own little box.

Atheism is certainly a mind virus, if such things exist.

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Voltaire

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclines man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy brings men’s minds about to religion.” – Sir Francis Bacon

“I always admired atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith.” – Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider

And I would say I accept that, to a point.

There are too many similarities (nucleotide similarities) of chimps and humans to be coincidence that also can distinguish them from other species.

Similarities can be explained by Common Design and/or convergence.

And molecular convergence is a reality in the evolutionary mode of thinking. Google the term “molecular convergence” and you will find Sean Carroll’s name.

See also “Convergent evolution in primates and an insectivore”.

Yes there are many, many differences. The only question is the mechanism for the similarities. Or whether one wants to call it common descent or not.

That is why I maintain that in order for universal common descent to separate itself from the other explanations is that it has to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related populations.

If it can’t do that then either present all the options or none and just present the data.

You said

“The point being that to accept universal common descent in any form is to do so on faith alone.”

We had this same discussion last week. Common descent of two species is different from universal common descent. There are too many similarities (nucleotide similarities) of chimps and humans to be coincidence that also can distinguish them from other species. Yes there are many, many differences. The only question is the mechanism for the similarities. Or whether one wants to call it common descent or not.

That’s interesting, because unless I’m mistaken, the only evidence we have of complexity arising from Dawkinesque “unguided” evolution is a few computer simulations.

“Dawkins in turn stated that he saw no reason why a mouse could not de-evolve into a sub-species and then re-evolve with wings.”

How is it that so many view this man as a “great” scientist? When was the last time anyone read something from him that impressed you? Made you go “wow, he really knows his stuff” All I hear from him is faith-based wishful thinking.