The Journal of Cladistics, born from the Willi Hennig Society, has about 600 subscribers. Its February 2016 issue was published recently and included this controversial editorial. For those without a biology background, here is what they're talking about:
Cladistics is a method of classifying...
I completely agree with you there, as far as popular perception goes he is a well-known scientist. So is Lawrence Krauss, who is doing some fascinating work in physics right now; so are Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who are public figures in the world of science education to the general...
It is wrong to point at a single well-known scientist and claim that his published works unrelated to evolutionary theory discredit the theory itself, which is bolstered by reams of evidence that have nothing to do with that scientist. Evolutionary theory does not need Richard Dawkins. He is an...
.
In no uncertain terms -- I say in love --
Society forgives; but I do not
However, gifts of verses like above
Increase thy chance this gaffe may be forgot
(In any case, revision might be best:
Thou hath writ 'mountains' yet I thought of breasts.)
.
Thou speaketh earnestly without deceit
Of nature's beauty bare and unadorned
Intentions clear to me upon receipt
And, frankly, just as swiftly to be scorned
To liken dainty wildflow'rs such as those
To such a woman, nay, a fair tigress
Is lauded; yet I've never been a rose
May I suggest thou...
Creationist criticism of evolution is not the same as scientific criticism of the ToE. A scientist's focus is more directed to the inner workings of the theory itself, and their efforts are directed to improving the theory to make it more consistent with the available evidence. A creationist's...
That also leads to the question of why we should care about the original article alluded to in the OP, since the author is not well-educated enough in the appropriate areas to address the theory properly. In both cases there is nothing substantial to discuss.
I would like to point out that there are five nucleic acids, not four, and three additional amino acids (rare, but still present in a variety of organisms). The premise behind the original image is incorrect. Even if it was correct, I fail to see any connection between these two sets of trivia.
Funny you say that since I am a Waterloo student myself. The Pascal lectures' stated goals are to bring together individuals who have areas of accomplishment in their Christian faith and another area of life, supposedly to enlighten students. My perception after a few years is that the quality...
Incidentally the third result on that Google search is a reddit thread where someone goes through the article point-by-point to show why it isn't true. They do skip over some points, but since there is a lot of repetition in the original article I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm not sure what...
Sadly he's right; there's a minimum height requirement for safety reasons. Pass on my thanks for being so thoughtful -- that, and a swift kick to the rear.