I wrote the post to this document

I might list a few of those (more than 20 boxes), @ PhysOrg, too.

I wish all of the colleagues/friends of those who waste my time, know what they write, behind nicks. I hope what all they write, will persist in their profiles/biographies, too. Wasting my time, hopefully not without wasting their credibilities. I proudly sign (links to self) in what I post, and all (not only friends) might reflect how I'm writing.

P.S: Now (Sept.19,2009), I'm getting off (after posting), for a week or more. I have said that, I will post in this list, for upto a month. Two-thirds of that time remains.

((Rating: Ethelred is a type of thoughtless, who opposes even tautologies. Such as, how he/she/it still insists about "infinite recursion/regression."))

Muhammed (s.a.s.) is the final valid prophet, and normally a role model. (But, if you chop issues hypocritically, you might get someone else, in some tangent.) Ethelred is a hypocrite who lives in a society where teens have sex, but cannot marry (because, marrying is forbidden by law, until relatively old).

The next link is not in its final shape, yet. Pre-publishable. But, I post now. I might revise. on pedophilia

I write self-rewriting software or scripts (or, combo), too. But, that is extra capability I craft. Our bodies "rewrite" continuously, while we grow up. Win95 has ability to repair [and even patch] itself, too. But, not able to re-design its species toward WinXP. Microsoft rewrote that. ((Rating: Ethelred is shallow, ignorant.))

For example, that is trivial to put the "reproduction" loop of genomics with frozen@mid80, into frozen@mid80 itself, but that would again not be macro-evolution. Only micro-"evolution."

The suggestion of showing (macro) "evolution in action" is a hoax, because

1. that is not macro-evolution
2. people think a lot to craft that ability into that

& proving a possibility/concept of godless genesis, refutes the "infinite-recursion" non-paradox

Only Avida is claiming to be macro-evolution software. The other programmers do not even suggest that. ((Rating: Ethelred is unable to comprehend words.))

Avida is not truly proving anything evolutionist, either. I had written that in macro-evolutionism is only a sci-fi paradigm

I might write more, if necessary.

Software-publishing is a creative enterprise. (But has non-creative types, too.) ((Rating: Ethelred is a ridiculous, bot-style, thoughtless type. Thus, his/her/its finding the creativity metaphor "ridiculous," is about that thoughtlessness of himself/herself/itself.))

The fossil-record supports expansion/enrichment (for all of the Universe), & both Torah and the Quran perfectly iterate this -- and we witness that, at every level.

The fossil record fits software-publishing history, too. Para-evo data, contradicts evolutionism. Supports modularity of the creativity. ((Rating: I told this, again. Ethelred is persistently denying.))

@zilqarneyn
Reverting? The inequality how I acknowledge, is theGod > human > dog ((Rating: If Ethelred is willing to revert that inequality for Ethelred, then, himself/herself/itself would count lesser than any dog -- while he/she/it would argue himself/herself/itself as more substantial than theGod.))

((Rating: Ethelred is a liar, who likes to actively express disrespect against the Creator. Then, expects respects to his/her/its persistent lies.))

The term "actively ignorant" fits Ethelred oneself, obviously.

Ethelred, is that word "pig" also your name (or, nick)? BTW, Ethelred, is your escalation of your ugliness suggestive that you do not want to be thought to be lesser-than-a-dog? Then, why do you speak with similar words, against the God? How do you expect anybody to respect you more than the God? You lieful atheist (selling as "agnostic," but swears at the Creator). Ethelred, your stupid palindrome, was crushable by my wit. You obviously are not worth a fingernail of mine, in any way. Your flames reflect your thoughtlessness. You are only a waste.))

@210 was demanding evidences about evolution. Ethelred tried to revert the question (against God). In return, I pointed to cosMaterial.htm

((Rating: Ethelred is a typical hypocrite. Talking to that, is no more valuable than telling about Islam, to a sabbataist. Ethelred's concept of science is only a lie. That agnosticism is also a lie. Talking a little, proves the case.))

Truly agnostic, would look at the holy books available. Not rant against the Creator. ((Rating: Ethelred is thoughtless. I'm not suggesting him/her/it to read the Quran, because hypocritical simpletons commit blunders against that, too. But, if agnostic, he/she/it was supposed to check out the book held by more than a billion people. How do you ignore that, if you would truly question what the God does, now?))

First of all, there is no such thing as "adding layers of complexity." Thoughtless, worthless people, who create nothing, might think so. People differ from others, by how well we layer our tools, then crafts, then art. There is no sense in assuming there would be "more complexity" only because there is the God that smoothes out -- & reports His style in holy books, we check that fitting right.

Perfection that we see in the nature, needs a perfect explanation. Who provides that harmony?

1. Why is there no true vestigiality? Gould was bragging that vestigiality was normal with evolution. Now, there is no true vestigiality, "except" the differences of different species.
2. Para-evo data contradicts "local-evolutions, no co-ordinator" concept.

((Rating: Ethelred's concept of science is only a lie. Talking a little, proves the case.))

If you start to separate biogenesis vs. evolution, that is your tautology. Then, you could guess up everything, with pre-destiny. Such as, there being only a few shapes to find out, which para-evo faithfully finds out all around the world.

That is, the maximal-atavism ideology. Or, equivalently, that the first cell had everything, then we lost something, in time. "Devolution," that is. :-))

How is that proving evolution, when biological data opposes the evolutionist ideology of Gould? Bio data reverts that to perfection point. Evolutionist contradiction: "vestigiality & perfection both evolutionist?" That is a hypocritical atheist bigotry.

Pandas are appropriate for their work. Not writin with pencils. They scrape bamboo leaves, or such. ((Rating: Ethelred expects all species to be the same, or will call that "vestigial."))

S.J.Gould proven false by bio data, if still kept, that is a hoax, and shows how lieful evolutionists insist to be.

You say that even in your previous box ("opposable thumb"), while swearing against the Creator. ((Rating: I surely think, Ethelred is truly a bot, with only a single-sentence response range? When his/her/its two sentences are taken together, thhey contradict. Worse, that is how evolutionism is. Ethelred is only dumping all of that contradictory lore. Not his/her/its invention. Other evolutionist hypocrites might even wish him/her/it to cut that talk short, because their contradictions are glaring in a single list. BTW, Ethelred is not my sockpuppet. I honestly waste my time, in responding to what seems to be some typical evolutionist bigot. Perhaps, a bot.))

How are they assuming genes to be "non-expressed" if they remain intact? ((Rating: What I said was right. Article's point is equivalent, but opposite guess. Ethelred is absurd, again. Bot's sentence-parsing fault, perhaps.))

If that would be so, then any micro-evolution would be macro-evolution. You liar, failing to find that proof about spontaneous-continuous-macro-evolution, now try to assume that as a proof? Micro-"evolution" is the normalcy (like instincts), while macro-evolution is never there. Why?

Gene-blocks similarities point at para-evo data which smashes evolutionism. The Creator is better proven, this way. Why should He refrain from yet another thing that refutes evolutionism? No way.

His taste, the modular blocks that is like how we have for software/etc.

All nature was supposed to behave the same (like, dance revues)? But animals have instincts, and they differ from other animals. The mutations are similar. They interact, in patterns. That is the law of the Creator. ((Rating: Ethelred, to refute the Creator, expects continuously arbitrary activity. I'm not behaving so. Why should the Smartness act so?))

((Rating: Ethelred wants to be the Creator? To behave absolutely erratically?))

Are you that old? The word vestigiality was first in 19th century, or so. Then, all of that list about humans, was proven wrong. Then, evolutionists try to save their face, by rewriting the word. That sort of re-interpreting is funny.

In contrast, the Quran is re-interpretable with precision to fit the scientific data we find now. The words are in their old senses, except the new aspects we infer. Now, I contrast that to evolutionist "re-interp" because evolutionists have not got that from distant past (nor distant sources).

For example, in the case of Bible, they might interpret "all Earth" as a local flood. Why not?

But evolutionist "re-interp" of "vestigiality" is a loser's game.

The enamel genes in the PhysOrg article, remain there? So, how about the macros in frozen@mid80? That is the species flexibility. ((Rating: How many times will this have to be told? Repetitive bot!))

The case was about human vestigiality. How do wehave nothing vestigial? That was the question.

Furthermore, let alone the fish, if you would raise people in special contexts, their epigenome or even genome might adapt. So what? If you revert those to other context, the species is again the same. That is the flexibility of a species.

So, that would allow lots of vestigial organs in humans, too? Oh, now, vice versa? By randomness, no vestigiality would persist? Worse, nothing would remain unless necessary for survival? If mutations supposedly wipe out anything unessential, then you subscribe to that absolutist position. Otherwise, what is the definition of randomness?

If bragging "having predicted microRNA", list all of your prophecies (& share their nobel). Ethelred is not looking like genius, at all. The list would have lots of absurdness, presumably. Add that survival-essentialism to the list, too. If anything is enjoyable but not essential, that refutes your theory. (I'm not so interested about that, but now that someone is making strong statements about that, put that in the list of his/her/its guesses.)

PhysOrg machinery has peculiarities, but people might trivially extract that URL, most of the time. In this case, presumably that is when the "www." prefix is not there following "http://" that, PhysOrg wraps that in "[URL]" boxes. Writing that with www (un-twitterly style), works.

BTW, I have written that URL countless times, well-clickable. First, try understanding what is written there, for me not to paste that link again, again, again, about the same thing ... (for a month on this list, then perhaps again, when Ethelred is around).

BTW, that kind of error-recovery is what compilers had been able for, long long ago. I guess, Eliza the bot, might have such (or, could have), too.

The Creator is perfect, but evolutionists are hypocritical. They try to grab both optimality, then also suggest vestigiality. Losers.

The taste of Allah, need not fit the tastes of atheists, let alone the tastes of anti-Creator foul-mouths.

Weigh Him by His standards. If He would not apply His word, then question that.

Ignorant uggly old ranters, do not have the right to command to the Creator. Logical people try the opposite strategy. Reading the holy book respectfully, and then we find the Quran right.

I have thought about malaria. That is a case of how useless the evolutionists are. They "know" how they fail, but not able to contribute to relief. I know the issues, but not necessary to give pearls to pigs, now. You, active-ignorants. (That is, "neglect." Your bot vocabulary is unable to combine?)

@isa09 (Sept.9,2009) is yet another evolutionist who is trying to find excuses not "To try and argue logically and sensibly" with people who point out their fallacies. There, their illogicality fuels their illogicality. Evolutionists fuel that absurd dogma, that way.

@Ethelred is proud to find PhysOrg's gotcha about pasting links. Not big marvel, but I have even found the cause of that. That is normal, because I'm who is smart. (The other way was no problem, either. People could trivially extract that link out of that PhysOrg's wraps mess, but Ethelred is not able to find any other fault in what I list. That is why that point is repetitive.)

The law in lots of Islamic countries? So, would I oppose the law? Why? I'm not inventing innovations. Lots of nations hang spies (USA, too). Laws have logic. Rule your own country, if you own one.

BTW, you like innovators? Take suicide-bombers, the novelties of late 20th century (presumably, importing Japanese style, into Islam). You like innovators? May Allah isolate you with the religion-innovators [you like]. Do you take that option? Warning: The liking might not be eternal, but the curse is not time-limited. Read your textbooks on evolution, yourself. Cruelty.

@malapropism (Sept9,2009), how are they any response to the question?

People request evidence for macro-evolution, and you list gene-similarity blocks? Software people publish with modules, too. Why would the Creator need to craft constantly all-new modules (and while para-evo is proving Him better)! Sometimes He does, sometimes He is re-using modules -- by expansion/enrichment, mostly. No evidence for continuity, let alone spontaneity of "macro-evolution."

You talk about software, then confuse self-rewriting software with Win95 to WinXP transition? What an ignorance!

The point in referring to human case is that, the true word was that old word. New term of vestigiality, is no concern for creationists, because that is only telling that species are different. (I told this, again.)

Furthermore, that quote you quote was against Ethelred. Not against what this article tells. Ethelred was opposing the point I told about human non-vestigiality. ((Rating: You all only make noise.))

Who wants tales (or, sci-fi like macro-evolutionism)? The Quran is against mythology, too. The Quran is demanding the proof about the "gods" people believe in. (That would apply to attributes people invent about Himself (such as Kabbalistic guesses), too.) Thus, the "possible" is not the final word. All right. But, a "possible" is good against people who claim there is a paradox.

If you are truly inquisitive type, go through the holy books, to see what fits the truth. Muslims have lists of scientific miracles from the Quran.

Para-evo is refuting evolutionism. That is, a counter-evidence. Why neglect that?

I have no opinion how Allah came to be. So far as we know, He was there before time (or, when time began). What I'm telling is the solution of the "infinite-recursion" (or, "infinite-regression") non-paradox. (Why are you lost about it? Trivial point.) What is "double-standard" there? Have you truly read that article? cosMaterial.htm

That article is responding to all your confusion. ((Rating: I hope. But, if similar to Ethelred, malapropism is a hopeless case, too. Ethelred keeps opposing.))

Lots of parents want their kids not to have the troubles they had in their own lives. Furthermore, the Quran is telling that if there would be multiple gods, they would fight. We see that in our world. You would request that "no-control" utopia, universally? Why?

@malapropism (Sept.13,2009),

What is that responding to? The quotes (about prophets) are not from the list as I see that on Sept.19.

Evolution is a faith. False faith. Not truly testable -- or, worse, found wrong because of para-evo, then put para-evo into dogma status (therefore, non-testable). Para-evo, vestigiality, perfectness, anything, if has pattern, evolutionists make up some story about that, toward evolutionism. Worse, there is no single nor final "holy book" of evolutionists to finally test. Sci-fi business.

The Quran is there. Upholds the biblical God -- but Jesus (a.s.) is "only" a human and prophet, not a god. Jesus (a.s.)

The world is full of lovely phenomena. You are following Ayala's anti-Creator bigotry, perhaps. The "sadism" in nature, is nothing if weighing by satisfaction and love, while we live. Humans are much more sadist. If you oppose Him, then you have to oppose humanity, a lot more.