U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

@rosborne979,

Quote:

There is also a vast and clear transition in morphology which is perfectly aligned with evolutionary theory, geology and genetics.

The morphology is a based on supposition, not evidence. Species are lined up in a transitional evolutionary model based on appearance, geo-physical predominance, etc. Anyone can line up birds from sparrows to eagles and proclaim one leads to the other - its clear, we can see they get bigger, therefore all sparrows will morph into eagles - given enough time. It is aligned with evolutionary theory, but that does not make it correct.

Quote:

Even the trees in our parks which are over a hundred years old can only be conjectured to have grown from seeds because nobody alive today ever saw them grow.

We can test the trees in the park by growing the seeds. Until testable proof is established, yes trees coming from seed would remain conjecture.

Quote:

a majority of scientific knowledge is based on deduction.

Deduction, leading to theory, which then makes predictions which are then tested. The most robust theories produce testable mathematical predictions. Ice cream sales go up in summer, as do the incidents of rape. By deduction if we stop selling ice cream we stop rapes. Deduction is the first, not the final step in the scientific method.

Quote:

Actually it's the most rigorously well supported theory in modern science today, bar none. Nothing in biology makes sense without it.

If so tell me the evidence? Darwin's theory is only relevant today in evolutionary biology - which is the theory looking at itself. Other forms of biology do not use it, because it lacks mathematical rigour. If you mean the concept of evolution as defined as 'change over time' then yes, biologists do subscribe to that - as do psychologists, botanists, software developers and my grandmother. But Darwin's theory of evolution states all life developed from a single cell, and that is not supported.

Quote:

Your example does not incorporate any form of selection,

You're right because selection implies choice (intelligence) and the Darwinian model is based on chance - not intelligence. If you mean 'random' selection in which choice and intelligence are discounted, then how are biological improvements justified? Natural selection is just another term for God/Supernatural force. In fact, one of the main arguments against Darwin (and Dawkins) in his time was his use of diefic metaphors to explain natural selection.

Quote:

every random stage of complexity is merely selected against it's relative ability to reproduce.

This is a common argument (and a good one) - specific variation in species will increase as it is proved adaptive. Longer legged hunters caught more game, survived longer, bore more children which themselves had longer legs and caught more game, lived longer.... We have evidence of this in biology and computer models (Tom Ray's artificial evolution), but it does not explain mutation across species. Tom Ray developed a computer virus which was programmed to reproduce (clone) as is or with with byte number variance - the original virus had 80 bytes. Sure enough the virus morphed into a 45 byte virus that survived remarkably well. It was a fascinating experiment. But the viral program never evolved into another program - it never became a word processing program, nor a media player, nor a chess program. That's one of the essential problems of the present evolutionary model - species just don't morph into other species.

Quote:

... plant husbandry (Directed Mutation) which has resulted in a new species which never existed before: Corn. Originally corn was a form of grass

And it still is a grass. We eat the seeds of that grass. It started as teosinte (a grass) and the seed pod was extensively developed until it resulted in the corn we eat today. However if you can morph corn into a rose bush, let me know.

Quote:

So far they've all crashed and burned, pretty dramatically.

Really? You haven't address my essential arguments against the Darwinian model of evolution. Change across species!! One final bit - you mention reproduction as an essential element in natural selection - it is. But that first cell had to be programmed to a) reproduce, and b) reproduced cells should have variation in genetic code. That implies engineering within the first cell (or first multitude of cells). Tom Ray did it in his viral program, but only through careful and exact engineering. His virus didn't spontaneously develop itself.

If your argument is truly to support Darwin then you're failing. If your argument is against supernatural creation of life - then its philosophical argument and lets take it there.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

There is also a vast and clear transition in morphology which is perfectly aligned with evolutionary theory, geology and genetics.

The morphology is a based on supposition, not evidence. Species are lined up in a transitional evolutionary model based on appearance, geo-physical predominance, etc. Anyone can line up birds from sparrows to eagles and proclaim one leads to the other - its clear, we can see they get bigger, therefore all sparrows will morph into eagles - given enough time. It is aligned with evolutionary theory, but that does not make it correct.

Quote:

Even the trees in our parks which are over a hundred years old can only be conjectured to have grown from seeds because nobody alive today ever saw them grow.

We can test the trees in the park by growing the seeds. Until testable proof is established, yes trees coming from seed would remain conjecture.

Quote:

a majority of scientific knowledge is based on deduction.

Deduction, leading to theory, which then makes predictions which are then tested. The most robust theories produce testable mathematical predictions. Ice cream sales go up in summer, as do the incidents of rape. By deduction if we stop selling ice cream we stop rapes. Deduction is the first, not the final step in the scientific method.

Quote:

Actually it's the most rigorously well supported theory in modern science today, bar none. Nothing in biology makes sense without it.

If so tell me the evidence? Darwin's theory is only relevant today in evolutionary biology - which is the theory looking at itself. Other forms of biology do not use it, because it lacks mathematical rigour. If you mean the concept of evolution as defined as 'change over time' then yes, biologists do subscribe to that - as do psychologists, botanists, software developers and my grandmother. But Darwin's theory of evolution states all life developed from a single cell, and that is not supported.

Quote:

Your example does not incorporate any form of selection,

You're right because selection implies choice (intelligence) and the Darwinian model is based on chance - not intelligence. If you mean 'random' selection in which choice and intelligence are discounted, then how are biological improvements justified? Natural selection is just another term for God/Supernatural force. In fact, one of the main arguments against Darwin (and Dawkins) in his time was his use of diefic metaphors to explain natural selection.

Quote:

every random stage of complexity is merely selected against it's relative ability to reproduce.

This is a common argument (and a good one, though limited) - specific variation in species will increase as it is proved adaptive. Longer legged hunters caught more game, survived longer, bore more children which themselves had longer legs and caught more game, lived longer.... We have evidence of this in biology and computer models (Tom Ray's artificial evolution), but it does not explain mutation across species. Tom Ray developed a computer virus which was programmed to reproduce (clone) as is or with with byte number variance - the original virus had 80 bytes. Sure enough the virus morphed into a 45 byte virus that survived remarkably well. It was a fascinating experiment. But the viral program never evolved into another program - it never became a word processing program, nor a media player, nor a chess program. That's one of the essential problems of the present evolutionary model - species just don't morph into other species.

Quote:

... plant husbandry (Directed Mutation) which has resulted in a new species which never existed before: Corn. Originally corn was a form of grass

And it still is a grass. We eat the seeds of that grass. It started as teosinte (a grass) and the seed pod was extensively developed until it resulted in the corn we eat today. However if you can morph corn into a rose bush, let me know.

Quote:

So far they've all crashed and burned, pretty dramatically.

Really? You haven't address my essential arguments against the Darwinian model of evolution. Change across species!! One final bit - you mention reproduction as an essential element in natural selection - it is. But that first cell had to be programmed to a) reproduce, and b) reproduced cells should have variation in genetic code. That implies engineering within the first cell (or first multitude of cells). Tom Ray did it in his viral program, but only through careful and exact engineering. His virus didn't spontaneously develop itself.

If your argument is truly to support Darwin then you're failing. If your argument is against supernatural creation of life - then its philosophical argument and lets take it there.

2 Replies

@blloydb,

Quote:

This is a common argument (and a good one, though limited) - specific variation in species will increase as it is proved adaptive. Longer legged hunters caught more game, survived longer, bore more children which themselves had longer legs and caught more game, lived longer.... We have evidence of this in biology and computer models (Tom Ray's artificial evolution), but it does not explain mutation across species.

Well yes it does, because of several reasons.

1Mutation does not define evolution

2The rise of new forms as a function of adaptive radiation, or adapting to entirely new niches is easily followed in the"bookkeeping tracks" of the genome of related genera and higher taxa, IT IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE GENOME.
To ignore these data , as well as all supportive scientific data, is about the most close minded way of seeing things.

Evolution studies are rarely ever a trip to prove a model, but a response based upon newest evidence. How does the fossil record of lizard like birds and bird like lizards of the Jurassic specifically deny the evolutionary model? These are entirely different orders of animals, not "micro evolutionary events". These are fossils of entirely new genera caught in the throes of evolving

The worst thing to a Creationist mind is all the irrefutable fossil and geological evidence which can be placed in a continuum that is continually being built by more and different evidence.Genomics has only helped define the"best fit" cladistics of species and genera (like the elephant family)

The use of random walk computer models is not even a good parallel to evolution because evolution, despite what many folks think, IS NOT RANDOM. Because it is primarily adaptive (thats why new functions for existing structures allows for entirely new structures in plants and animals), its path never leads to a defined end point.

2 Replies

@blloydb,

Quote:

Other forms of biology do not use it

Name one please.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Alrighty - using 'clever' words to explain your point. But does it make sense?

Quote:

1Mutation does not define evolution

What does define evolution then - number 2?

Ohh k clever clogs - lets see if we can decipher this:

Quote:

2The rise of new forms as a function of adaptive radiation,

New forms (meaning new species or variance within species - longer beaks, thicker fur?) of life occur because they are responding to the environment?

Quote:

or adapting to entirely new niches

Niches in environment?

Quote:

is easily followed in the"bookkeeping tracks" of the genome of related genera and higher taxa,

Hmmm... you got me stumped on this one - 'is easily followed in the ...' Nope, you lost me.

Quote:

IT IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE GENOME.

Ah - reproduction does not determine evolution! Oh then what does? ( Specialised language is meant to bring clarity to complex concepts - yours doesn't.)

Quote:

Evolution studies are rarely ever a trip to prove a model, but a response based upon newest evidence.

Thats exactly my point - there are no attempts to prove the theory any longer. Evolutionary theory is supposed to be accepted as a done deal. Huh?? Problems don't go away just by ignoring them.
You're right about this though - new bits of fossil (evidence) are found, then classified into special groups (genera, taxa, whateva) and all sorts of possible scenarios of how the fossil came about are discussed in finite head-up-the-ass detail. Oops - theys fighting words!

Quote:

These are fossils of entirely new genera caught in the throes of evolving

Or not. Maybe they are all species existing singularly alongside other species. I have many clothes happily existing side by side in my closet - my skirts will not morph into trousers.

Quote:

evolution, despite what many folks think, IS NOT RANDOM

I agree - randomness to explain evolution is illogical.

Quote:

... all the irrefutable fossil and geological evidence which can be placed in a continuum that is continually being built by more and different evidence.Genomics has only helped define the"best fit"

Yes, all fossils are fit into a continuum that is growing daily, but that doesn't mean that one species is the precursor of the next. Like I said in an earlier post - I can fit all birds into a continuum table of 'bird evolution' from sparrow to eagle (oops just discovered the ostrich, so redefinition of bird evolution - now my sparrow is evolving to an ostrich). Just because I can fit them all together doesn't mean that a sparrow is necessarily evolving to an ostrich - no matter how well drawn my diagrams are. Corraborative evidence, in the form of testable predictions or independent empirical evidence, is needed to support a theory - adding a few dozen more fossils into your table does not make it more convincing.

Quote:

Because it is primarily adaptive (thats why new functions for existing structures allows for entirely new structures in plants and animals),

This is the sweeping type of statement that Creationists use that is not supported - its the same as saying God made different kinds of species because it was good for the world. Lovely thought but if we are looking at it scientifically then we need more than pretty words.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I think the reason why the Darwinist view of evolution is so adamantly clutched, irregardless of genuine failings in the theory, is that it represents all modern rational thought. To question or heaven-forbid reject Darwin is to reject the scientific method. We now see ourselves as enlightened individuals, no longer swayed by superstition and fear of the devil. We see the rejection of Darwin's views as somehow a return to religious fables, rip up the science books and open the Bible, Torah, Koran, Gita or Joe's Let-Me-Tell-Y'all-How-It-Is Truth - and this we cannot accept. Of course not. No other scientific theory (that I know of) is so defended without just cause. Even diehard Newtonians altered their mathematical view of the universe once Eddington proved Einstein's theory of bending light and relative time. We can discuss the merits of the capitalist system, pros and cons of paediophilia and whether raccoon is a viable steak option without the passionate out pouring and name slinging that criticisms of Darwin seem to bring.

3 Replies

@blloydb,

blloydb wrote:

The morphology is a based on supposition, not evidence. Species are lined up in a transitional evolutionary model based on appearance, geo-physical predominance, etc.

The morphology as found in the geologic column matches predictions made by evolutionary theory. The combination of those things are the testable predictions of the theory. Do you know of any other theory which predicts that we will find the things that we do (in the timeframes we expect)?

blloydb wrote:

Quote:
Even the trees in our parks which are over a hundred years old can only be conjectured to have grown from seeds because nobody alive today ever saw them grow.

We can test the trees in the park by growing the seeds. Until testable proof is established, yes trees coming from seed would remain conjecture.

No, you can't test the trees in the park by growing their seeds, you can only test the seeds of the trees by growing them. You are being inconsistent with the application of the test you are proposing. And if you think that trees growing from seeds is merely conjecture, then you are not talking about science any more, you are moving into areas of philosophy in which perceptions of reality are in question.

blloydb wrote:

But Darwin's theory of evolution states all life developed from a single cell, and that is not supported.

No it doesn't. Darwin's theory only states that biology evolves by means of reproduction, variation and natural selection. It implies cellular origins, but doesn't state that.

blloydb wrote:

You're right because selection implies choice (intelligence) and the Darwinian model is based on chance - not intelligence.

Incorrect. Selection does not imply intelligent choice any more than a river flowing down the lowest channels implies intelligence in its direction.

blloydb wrote:

Natural selection is just another term for God/Supernatural force.

No it's not. Otherwise it would be called "supernatural selection" or "artificial selection" not "natural" selection.

By the way, welcome to A2K. It's been a long time since we've had someone argue for the creationist point of view who could actually write his own stuff instead of just cutting and pasting ancient propaganda.

1 Reply

@blloydb,

blloydb wrote:

I think the reason why the Darwinist view of evolution is so adamantly clutched, irregardless of genuine failings in the theory, is that it represents all modern rational thought.

Whereas in reality, the reason it is so adamantly clutched is that it has no genuine failings, makes repeatedly accurate predictions and provides functional results. Just because you want to declare your own personal objections to the theory as "failings" doesn't in any way undermine the established scientific fact of evolution. It only shows that you are not above using standard creationist debate tactics to try to spread misinformation.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

blloydb" wrote:
Other forms of biology do not use it

Name one please.

I thought i'd just repeat this question, as our boy here seems to have missed it.

1 Reply

@blloydb,

I think you're actually kind of onto something there. It's not that evolution is defended without just cause. It probably isn't defended enough, as many scientists don't really see a need to.

It's that no scientific theory has been so attacked without just cause...at least not since the geocentric universe or flat earth days.

The theory of evolution, like ALL of science, is constantly being reviewed, modified and corrected. There ARE NO OTHER THEORIES being presented. Even ID isn't a theory, is just poking holes in the ONLY theory and suggesting those holes be filled with magic.

You can look at anything in nature and ask, is it magic, or is there a rational explanation? What darwin did was look at biodiversity and say...here's a rational explanation. That's the only reason there's any controversy. Many religions are (or were) strongly married to the "magic" explanation, and think that a rational explanation ruins the story.

Because it does.

If you have another theory, no matter how crap, I'd like to hear it.

1 Reply

@blloydb,

Quote:

I think the reason why the Darwinist view of evolution is so adamantly clutched, irregardless of genuine failings in the theory, is that it represents all modern rational thought.

Evolution is about lifestyles, and not about science.

http://www.mooj.com/images/rx-112203-kp.jpg

If evolution were about science it would have been abandoned decades gone by, and certainly after the failed fruit fly experiments of the early 1900s.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

I have no problem with evolution, (very few do) rather it's the Darwinan model of undirected mutation through incremental steps determined by natural selection that's problematic. And critiques of the theory are often met with comments such as yours:

Quote:

Many religions are (or were) strongly married to the "magic" explanation, and think that a rational explanation ruins the story.

You use the word 'rational', when in fact the word should be 'godless'. That's what many religions reject - that life was created from a violent planetary accident, because of its implications - no purpose, no justification for morality, all life is temporal and meaningless. It goes against what Einstein called "a cosmic religious feeling" that a lot of people have, even if they are not affiliated with a particular religious faith.

That aside, my issue is - Why is this argument about a scientific theory always brought down to a discussion of faith? Why can't the argument for or against the Darwinian model remain a discussion about the merits or problems of the theory - without implication to a God - or no God. Darwin's theory is a model of how life could have developed, its not a philosophical argument - though I do concede it has implications far greater than Darwin tackled in his writings. But we must remember he didn't discuss the validity of a God. And yet now it seems his work cannot be discussed without proclaiming allegiance to atheism or a deity.

I'm not familiar with the term Creationist - it's used a lot in America, not so much in Europe or Asia, however I'm becoming much more familiar. I see it as a way to dismiss argument. If my argument implies intelligence in the creation of life, it is not a valid rebuttal to say that my argument is no longer valid or even admissible. Why? I'm not saying 'And God created everything so there!' Far from it, I don't know. I look at the world around me, I read, I study, I'm extremely curious and I question the answers that are on offer. Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

My problems (and I'm not alone) with the Darwinian model are as follows:
a) Incremental steps cannot explain biological systems. When I look for explanations I get things like the 'three door model' or something like it which state that once a piece of the system (visual, auditory, etc) is realised, developed, found (whatever term you want to use), the knowledge of it is saved until the next piece in the puzzle is found, evolved (whatever term). But why would that knowledge be saved if there is no blueprint? How would the cell know what to save and what to discard? Especially as there is no intelligence involved. An analogy I often read is the monkey typing a sentence of Shakespeare. It is presented as the monkey types away and eventually will hit the right key. Once he does that information is stored and he keeps typing away until he has hit all the correct keys - hence he has typed a sentence of genius without knowledge of what he was doing. But someone somewhere knew what letters to save to build the sentence. So the process may be unintelligent but it has followed a pre-determined design.

2) We've never been able to morph one species into another. I see that there have been some advances in morphing species of plants into other species, but a lot of it seems that the classification of species becomes smaller and therefore the jump from one species to another is not as great as a whale to a walrus to a cow would imply.

3) Life is very robust in maintaining its genetic integrity. Mutations often end in disability, death or inability to reproduce - never it seems is the mutation beneficial. Oops - I'm setting myself up here (I'm learning about you A2K lot) Before you find an example of a viral mutation that helps the virus in its mad reproduction ... I mean beneficial mutations are few and far between, especially in large multi-celled organisms - I'm talking cat, dog, cow, human.

Before you jump on me, tasers hissing, I am not trying to undermine all rational thought, I am not discarding years of scientific discoveries. I am saying these aspects of Darwin's model are not adequately addressed, and over the years scientists have tried to overcome these issues yet they remain problematic.

Darwin's model is a reductionist one. He believed life began as simple organisms and over time developed into the vast complexity that exists today. However we now see that even the most simple cells have incredible complexity, that we cannot duplicate.

Quote:

If you have another theory, no matter how crap, I'd like to hear it.

Such a welcoming offer, so unbiased.

One last thing - I commented earlier that there are fields of biology that no longer use the Darwinian model, and was promptly jumped on by 5 year olds sticking out their tongues. I concede, there are no complete fields of biology that state Darwin is of no use to them, only particular biologists. I don't think these biologists have thrown away their science books and picked up the Bible as their guide. But the way many of you go on, it seems as if you are saying you and only you have exclusive rights to science. If you want to practice science leave any notion of God outside the door? Why? What's that got to do with anything? I saw a title of a book once (though haven't read it) which I thought was catchy - Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. It made me laugh, it will probably make you fume.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Evolution is about lifestyles, and not about science.

Lifestyles? Hmm.. you stumped me. Should I be thinking corduroy jackets and evening lectures? Or do you mean religious adherence against evolutionary abandonment? Are we talking about how Punk evolved into New Romanticism? Or 80's narcissism into 90's austerity? Nothing like a good throw away statement to mean nothing but rubbish.

Quote:

If evolution were about science it would have been abandoned decades gone by,

Gunga you love the throw away sound bite - don't ya. OK here's one. Bend over I can't hear what you're saying (talking out your arse).

That said - I love your reckless abandon and if you keep at it, you will eventually hit upon a stroke of genius, that is after all one of the main tenets of Darwin's model.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

You're using data from other fields to support Darwin's theory, only I don't see how it works. The geologic column talks about rocks and fossils in the Earth's strata. Okay, there were dinosaurs and they seemed to be wiped out all together, then there is a layer rich in iridium, then no more dinosaurs, etc... How does this support the notion of evolution through undirected mutation in small incremental steps through natural selection. It just shows that dinosaurs once existed and now they don't. It also opens a big question as to what the iridium laced layer is all about, which I find fascinating.

I don't get the whole tree/seed debate - it's an analogy gone skew. Not worth a further thought.

Quote:

Darwin's theory only states that biology evolves by means of reproduction, variation and natural selection.

Yeah, that's what I'm arguing against - see any post of mine - it is problematic and just saying it over and over again doesn't make the problems go away. If you wonder what I (and others) consider to be the problems with the theory check an earlier post of mine.

Quote:

It implies cellular origins, but doesn't state that.

Yes Darwin never gave an explanation of how life came about. He started his theory with life already begun, the first cells well equipped with the Natural Selection mechanism in place. How did the Natural Selection mechanism get there? This wonderful devise that determines what evolves in future generations and what is discarded?

It seems intelligent - "oops there she goes again, can't have a discussion without bringing intelligence into the debate." It seems completely irrational to me to discuss life and say we can't include any talk of intelligence. Can we talk about computers as if they were just thrown together - as if I just woke up one morning and there it was - my new Mac at the bottom of the bed amidst yesterday's discarded underwear? It makes no rational sense to discount intelligence as a rational concept and argument in the formation of life, except as a strategic method of winning a side to a debate. Arguing Darwin's view you decide was is and is not admissible. Who made you judge at this debate? If I want to bring in intelligence and offer valid reasons for bringing in the concept, what valid reason do you have to discount it? Anyway back to your post.

Quote:

By the way, welcome to A2K.

Thank you

4 Replies

@blloydb,

blloydb wrote:

Quote:
Darwin's theory only states that biology evolves by means of reproduction, variation and natural selection.
Yeah, that's what I'm arguing against - see any post of mine - it is problematic and just saying it over and over again doesn't make the problems go away. If you wonder what I (and others) consider to be the problems with the theory check an earlier post of mine.

Modern science does not consider it problematic at all, and I haven't seen anything in your posts which challenges it on any reasonable grounds. You've made a few unsupported statements regarding your disagreements with the basic theory, but nothing more than baseless assertions at this point (simply stating that natural selection implies an intelligence is not sufficient).

Perhaps you want to select a particular challenge you see to the theory and let us discuss it in detail.

0 Replies

@blloydb,

blloydb wrote:

It seems intelligent - "oops there she goes again, can't have a discussion without bringing intelligence into the debate." It seems completely irrational to me to discuss life and say we can't include any talk of intelligence. Can we talk about computers as if they were just thrown together - as if I just woke up one morning and there it was - my new Mac at the bottom of the bed amidst yesterday's discarded underwear? It makes no rational sense to discount intelligence as a rational concept and argument in the formation of life, except as a strategic method of winning a side to a debate.

You start off as though you want to take a scientific approach to understanding evolution, but then you break into these "arguments from common sense" points which have not scientific validity.

It's hard to debate something when you keep shifting your stance between scientific foundations and metaphysical supposition.

If you want to approach this from the scientific foundation, then we can definitely answer some of the areas where you seem to be misunderstanding the basic theory. However, if you continue to switch foundations into the philosophical, then things are going to get very confusing.

Are you actually trying to get answers to your questions, or are you just trying to foment debate? Smile

1 Reply

@blloydb,

blloydb wrote:

You're using data from other fields to support Darwin's theory, only I don't see how it works. The geologic column talks about rocks and fossils in the Earth's strata. Okay, there were dinosaurs and they seemed to be wiped out all together, then there is a layer rich in iridium, then no more dinosaurs, etc... How does this support the notion of evolution through undirected mutation in small incremental steps through natural selection.

All by itself it doesn't. However, the fact that particular species occur only in certain locations in the geological column, and consistently match the predicted biological development sequence predicted by evolutionary theory makes fossils and geology one of a vast array of supporting evidence for the basic theory. It also provides an avenue of falsifiability, which despite centuries of digging has never revealed any conflicting relationship between the geological column and biological development.

blloydb wrote:

It just shows that dinosaurs once existed and now they don't. It also opens a big question as to what the iridium laced layer is all about, which I find fascinating.

Yes, it is fascinating. The iridium layer is most likely associated with a large asteroid impact. You are familiar with the Alvarez theory?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Are you actually trying to get answers to your questions, or are you just trying to foment debate?

I'd say this member neither wants to get answers to questions, nor to foment debate. It seems to me that all this member wants to do is to throw sand into the eyes of any casual reader. Pretty much the same technique as was used by the member "real life" in years gone by. If one presents a mixture of science and speculation, one can make oneself appear plausible and informed, while boring in on a target of making evolutionary theory seem implausible, and any proponents of such a theory appear as confused individuals, not amenable to "common sense."

1 Reply

HAs a hamster been screwing around with the fonts? I seem to be reading stuff in Senatorial. Did I miss a memo?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Pretty much the same technique as was used by the member "real life" in years gone by.

Interesting, he reminded me of RL as well. I'm not sure how genuine his questions are yet either, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. At least they are more rational than Gunga's and less puerile than Spendi's (for the moment).

0 Replies

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know