A mass demonstration (in London or maybe Manchester?) involving all groups concerned in any of these vital areas of life and society should be organised and, if there’s time, a mass May Day march and demo would be ideal.

We need to be seen to stand up for what little Rights we have left. Let’s do it!!!

And actually, I had a lecturer who spent some of his time researching the theory of panspermia, I actually fail to see how panspermia/evolution have anything to do with each other. Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.

But anyway, I haven’t gone as far to have read anything about anarchism, but you know, I’ve see the media reports about it, all those scary people smashing windows and wearing black. Life’s too short for me to read up on it, but instead of trying to be neutral I’ll form an opinion based on what the news channels say. Just like you did with Dawkins.

And SMI2LE means “Space Migration Intelligence Life Extension” – the preconditions for getting out of this gravity well and into the cosmos (the first part is conditional on the second and third parts in the theory). Here’s the theory – http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/SFR23.htm and here are some contemporary pointers: Space Migration: http://www.virgingalactic.com/ Information Doubling (approaching intelligence squared): http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/2010-data-doubling-every-11-hours/4497 Life Extension: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp=45651848&#null

I did specifically say ‘any objection you can make to it can either be refuted or if not then scientists will take it seriously and investigate.’ It is not restrictive to scientific investigation to accept evolution, what would be restrictive is to continue to accept it in the light of new evidence suggesting otherwise. In the same way that it would be restrictive not to accept that the world is round when studying plate tectonics. You could say you are willing to accept evidence showing the world isn’t round, but it really would be ridiculous to go around saying accepting the world is round is restrictive to scientific investigation. Look at your quote in another context ‘The world being round, appears to me, and most scientists, to offer the best explanation for why you can set sail from the UK and end up back where you started’. What is the point in saying that? You may as well just say ‘The world is round’.

I am happy to expose any logical fallacies from the other side, which I believe I did with your egg example. You stated that science could not answer the question, but I showed it can, it was a logical fallacy from you to assume that the molecular properties of an egg could not lead it to having uses in cooking whilst also being useful to the developing chick.

So you believe that humans may be evolving towards something? Or all species? What is your evidence for this? The one making the claim must back it up with evidence. There is evidence for evolution by natural selection. There is evidence for evolution by sexual selection. There is evidence that neutral mutations can be important (mutations which have neither a beneficial or negative effect on the organism). I see no evidence that evolution is heading towards a goal, but if you provide some I would be happy to consider it. It is a waste of everyone’s time to propose something, and just sit on the fence without either a) trying to gather evidence for your hypothesis or b) showing what evidence there is.

I could equally claim that evolution has been caused by fairies directing the process from the Magical Faraway Tree, but that would that add nothing to the discussion unless I had some evidence of a) fairies and b) the Magical Faraway Tree. Would it be useful to spend my time trying to find out if fairies or the Magical Faraway tree have something to do with evolution? No, because there is no evidence that either exist. If some evidence comes to light that one does exist, maybe then it would be useful to spend time looking for their role in evolution. Is it therefore useful to try and find out if a ‘creator’ ‘alien’ ‘other intelligent being’ had something to do with evolution without ANY evidence of their existence?

There are plenty of debates being had in the theory of evolution, why not learn some more about those rather than discussing claims made without evidence? (I did a google search in SM12LE and found nothing so I’m not too sure what you’re talking about)

Here are some examples of genuine debates within the field of evolution which I have picked out of this weeks issue of Journal of Evolutionary Biology:
How did social insects such as bees and ants evolve?
How are some parasites able to influence the behaviour of their hosts?
What is the advantages of an insect being specially adapted to a specific plant, rather than being more generalist?

Scientists should be able to spend their time explaining to people their research (you do pay for them with your taxes), not constantly defending evolution against unsubstantiated attacks. And yes, I include your ‘There are problems with the current theory of evolution’ as an unsubstantiated attack because really you just feel uneasy about Dawkins going around calling a fact a fact.