>Unlike the claims of biblical creationists, nobody said the
>publications in Nature were "infallible"

as if it were truth.

>- if you can prove
>it to be wrong on a scientific basis, then by all means, do
>so.

It wasn't my intentions to prove that article false. I was just showing that the researching methods of Nature articles have been shown to be faulty before.


>>E Coli and B Aphidicola are in the same order...of course
>>there's a common "ancestor", just like apes and man are in
>>the same order.
>
>Is that supposed to do something to disprove the paper?

No, it was supposed to draw parallels of proclaiming things without definite proof.

>And I suppose our REAL, non-mythical ancestors were named
>Adam and Eve, right? LOL, you're funny.

No, they're mythical as well (get a dictionary)...it's just that they were created. But here's a thought, before you attack what you assume to be my beliefs. Let me reveal them to you first, you'll seem less of an ass, then to attack something I've never said or hinted at.

>This is hilarious - that link is from the same people who
>published the Nature article... how is that supposed to
>disprove the paper?

Being a biochem guy, I thought it was neat. It was information that can be proven...unlike the assumption made in the article. The fact that alot of the same genes were used by different species according to the blast results was just to relate to what I was going to say next.

Are paintings an evolution...or are they creations? An artist will leave their impression on a piece of art. Multiple pieces of art created by the same artist will share the same impression. This impression, whatever it may be, is how you seperate the works that were done by this artist from the works done by another.

You call it evolution...I call it God's impression.

>Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles
>of an omniscient god... drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Based on the principle of being ominiscient...not based on an omniscient God. Reading is good, mmmkay?

In a quantum computer a "bit" would hold both a zero and a one at the same time. It would know every outcome...is that not the definition of being omniscient?