The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

[shubi]

Well, everyone is good at something. ;-)

[shubi]

Myopic is a term you should invest some introspection into.

[Alacarte]

That's one way of looking at it. Myopic, to be sure, but a story you can tell for ages to come. Make the best of it.

What do you attribute the lack of advancement from 500-1600 AD? What changed at 1600 AD to jump-start science if it wasn't secularism?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Is that just some kind of Freudian slip, or what?

It is not the part of a Freudian slip to mistake a solid for a gas, or vice versa.

[shubi]

My "silly game" is called scientific knowledge and training.

Everyone knows you can't respond because you know so little about science. It is obvious from your and the other creationists posts.

Whenever we try to discuss the science, you switch to philosophy or calumny.

[general_re]

Take for example a FREEPER who shall not be named that really insulted me a bit ago.

Ut sementem feceris, ita metes. - Cicero

[AndrewC]

How can you post this stuff and claim it supports your uneducated conclusions, when the people who went to school for years and devote their life to produce this data completely disagree with you! Is that not the height of intellectual dishonesty?

Your use of logical fallacy and red herring are evidence that you have conceded the point. The megabase deletion when announced drew gasps from these scientists that went to school for years, etc. They knew that this did not fit the paradigm you push. "1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents" is a hefty number of tiny skeletons.

[balrog666]

So long you've been here,
so little you learn to date,
so sad to be you.

Was that a proper haiku?

I win!

[shubi]

Please explain how deleting a section of DNA that has no effect on phenotype refutes evolution?

BTW, this is only the summary of the article. You need a subscription to the article to read the full thing. Please post the rest of the article for those of us that don't subscribe to nature. Thanks.

[AndrewC]

Whenever we try to discuss the science, you switch to philosophy or calumny

I'm the one discussing deletions in the genome. You are the one trying to "impress" with your self-aggrandizement.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What do you attribute the lack of advancement from 500-1600 AD?

Could be any number of things. How familiar are you with world history during that time? I may not know the history of science as well as you, but I know science has been thwarted by the philosphy of evolution parading itself as science. There seems to have been a certain "lack of advancement" since Darwin appeared on the scene, too. But please advise as to how conjectural recapitulations of history serve the interest of science in the present moment, let alone qualify as science. Does Einstein stand on the shoulders of Darwin?

[AndrewC]

Please explain how deleting a section of DNA that has no effect on phenotype refutes evolution?

It does not support RMNS to have conserved things that do not contribute to the well-being of an organism.

[shubi]

Coding sequences shared between mammals supports evolution. There are many shared sequences between humans and bananas.

[LiteKeeper]

The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

But evolution is the only system that is protected from criticism by the courts...in fact, it is a crime to question evolution in the classroom. Name another discipline with the same kind of protection by the courts.

Survive

[Urbane_Guerilla]

I am neither a Christian nor any other kind of religious believer. But I am still waiting for the Deeply Offended believers in evolution to explain why it isn't the silliest piece of sheiss since Marxism.

This editorial is the epitome of the narrow minded arrogance of evolutionists, most of whom never address the non-existent mechanics of speciation, and all of whom cannot tell us what that mechanism is.

The categorical position of evolutionists is that the evidence of evolution is too overwhelming to be questioned. They just never seem to get around to telling us what that overwhelming evidence is, and they specifically never describe to us how the offspring of one animal becomes another species entirely, and meets up with another offspring which also was born an entirely different species, and the two are lucky enough to mate and eventually produce the frontal lobes.

[shubi]

"It does not support RMNS to have conserved things that do not contribute to the well-being of an organism."

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of inheritance. Neutral sequences would be preserved, since they are not selected positively or negatively.

[shubi]

Do you have any science to refute evolution, or just your unscholarly opinion?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Just give us one scientific argument against evolution, just one!

Matter has never been observed apart from both intelligence and design.

[Alacarte]

Your use of logical fallacy and red herring are evidence that you have conceded the point.

So let me get this straight, you don't think genetics are true? What exactly IS the point you are trying to make.

One too many philosophy classes when you should have been in science class.

They knew that this did not fit the paradigm you push...

WHo says it does not fit into evolution? You? Sorry pal, but you have to do better. I'm sure that Nature article said NO such thing. You make it sound like nothing amazing ever happens in science.

So you are suggesting that something in genetics invalidates evolution? You mean like the way genetics was discovered way after evolution, but it just happens to fit perfectly into the mechanism for heredity that Darwin was missing? Genetics has validated evolution a hundredfold.

[shubi]

No, the courts are protecting our children from being indoctrinated with superstitious nonsense passed off as Christian doctrine.