>Are you under the impression that I have some evidence challenging "random
>mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macroevolution" which
>hasn't already been articulated by Denton, Senapathy, Hoyle, Dean Kenyon,
>Johathan Wells, Behe, Grasse, Koestler, Dembski, Berlinski, Johnson, etc., ?
>I assure you I have not.
Did you think I was going to present you with original research? I assure
you I was not. I'm going to look in my books (I'll spare you a list of the
authors. You already know them) and I'll do some web searches and find the
requested data. I was sort of hoping you would do the same.
>Why do you care so much what I believe and why?
This is a discussion e-mail list. I enjoy discussing stuff. Especially this
stuff. I like to believe that my ideas are supported by evidence, not just
wishful thinking. I keep thinking that you can be persuaded to present some
of the logic and/or evidence which supports your thinking which can then be
discussed. So far the supporting argument for your ideas consists of "I
don't want mutation to be random."
BTW Behe doesn't support your position and Johnson doesn't present
evidence. He's only a propagandist.
"Life itself is the proper binge."