Replies

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a sad day when we see people on America's 'premiere conservative forum' insulting science they obviously don't (or can't) understand. Just a little bit of reading from a reliable science text about coevolutionary pressure would render a great deal of understanding to the subject at hand and give the posters more credibility, but this would actually require the discomfort of what trained scientists call 'learning'. It's definitely much easier to launch into backhanded insults against the science research based on a short press release.

It doesn't do conservatives well to be associated with this kind of tripe.

Merry Christmas!

It's definitely much easier to launch into backhanded insults...

I guess so, especially concluding that people are ignorant of science because they either disagree with the conclusions of the interpretation of the fossil record or laugh themselves silly over the stupid statements made by the *scientists* in this article. This article is a joke and should be an embarrassment to scientists everywhere.

It's one thing to observe that squirrels have an extra litter when there's a bumper crop of cones but statements like:"By producing very few cones some years, the trees starve their seed predators, giving themselves an evolutionary advantage.Oh they do? They have this figured out?

and "...such as these squirrels as going along with the trees’ game,”..." Game? Is he serious?

It remains unclear exactly how squirrels can predict ... The animals might also notice more of these cone buds in the spring ahead of the harvest and have an extra litter based on this visual cue.

McAdam says he would not trust his stock portfolio to the squirrels, but adds that the animals “sure do better than most investors” in predicting boom and bust years.

If this is considered serious science; science is seriously in trouble.

"Ladies and gentlemen, it's a sad day when we see people on America's 'premiere conservative forum' insulting science they obviously don't (or can't) understand."

It is indeed a sad day when people pretend that science can answer every question from a naturalistic perspective without reminding everyone that a naturalistic answer is a requirement of science.

'Coevolutionary pressure' is simply "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and anyone who really understands science knows this.

Therefore, to fail to inform the audience of that circular thought pattern is either a lack of critical thinking ability or...