Mesk

Mesk may or may not be wrong but Mesk is secure in himself you and others could learn from Mesk.

Death of a popular anti-ID argument 2007

I think Mesk is referring to site directed mutagenesis, not just artificial selection.

Creationism, defined 2006

Tell us, Mesk, is 'modern evolutionary theory' true?

Confirmation Bias and ID 2006

Tell us, Mesk, is 'modern evolutionary theory' true?

Confirmation Bias and ID 2006

Having failed to establish anything remotely Lamarckian about what Mesk, Nick and I were saying, you now assert that selection is somehow unrelated to genetics.

Darwin's Defenders Go Neo-Lamarckian 2007

In the "Death of a popular anti-ID argument" thread, Mesk said:

Darwin's Defenders Go Neo-Lamarckian 2007

In the now very long thread Mystery of Consciousness Mesk introduces some alternative descriptions of irreducibly complex properties we associate with mind and consciousness.

2007 January - Telic Thoughts 2007

It was Nick and Mesk who insisted that "information" in the genome demonstrates the moth's environment was drowned in coal dust.

Darwin's Defenders Go Neo-Lamarckian 2007

As for Neo-Lamarckian allusions, why don't you and Mesk and Nick go ahead and explain to us all how any organism's adaptation to directly experienced selection pressure – of any kind – during its lifetime manages to cause genome changes in its offspring.

Darwin's Defenders Go Neo-Lamarckian 2007

Absolutely nothing that Mesk writes indicates a belief, as you accused, "that egg-laying moths alter the melanin genes of their offspring in reaction to the presence of birds."

Darwin's Defenders Go Neo-Lamarckian 2007