It's a good thing the Theory of Evolution isn't true.

[Autodidact]

This morning on NPR I heard a story about how epidemiologists and virologists have been able to track the genesis of the virus by calculating the rate of evolutionary change, and this helped them to assess the virus's lethality. Since there is no such thing as evolutionary change, they must be wrong. The government is clearly wasting money on this research, money that could be better spent teaching creationism in the schools.

 

[j76]

Every credible scientist in the world believes in evolution

 

[Thief]

Thief here....
So...it's been a while....however....
Last I saw of the list, there are rules and requirements associated with scientific method.
Without the rules, the results of the experiment are not considered valid.

Of course the flip-side of that is also true.
If you cannot should an item to be false by experiment well done and repeatable...then your disclaimer is not valid.

 

[painted wolf]

what?

wa:do

 

[Bedlam]

what?

wa:do

Agreed. What?

:areyoucra

 

[Yerda]

Every credible scientist in the world believes in evolution

Fred Hoyle didn't. Tellin' me Hoyle wasn't credible?

 

[Autodidact]

Fred Hoyle didn't. Tellin' me Hoyle wasn't credible?

I'm not aware that the astronomer Fred Hoyle ever took a position on the Theory of Evolution, as why would he, not being a Biologist. I believe he had some odd notions about abiogenesis, which was however also outside his field.

 

[Yerda]

I'm not aware that the astronomer Fred Hoyle ever took a position on the Theory of Evolution, as why would he, not being a Biologist. I believe he had some odd notions about abiogenesis, which was however also outside his field.

Are you a biologist? I'm not and I'm quite certain that I've accepted a position on the Theory of Evolution.

But for the matter I think that what Hoyle attempted to discredit falls under the scope of "evolution".

 

[Autodidact]

Are you a biologist? I'm not and I'm quite certain that I've accepted a position on the Theory of Evolution.

Sure, but since I'm not a Biologist, it carries no more weight than anyone else's.

But for the matter I think that what Hoyle attempted to discredit falls under the scope of "evolution".

Certainly not the Theory of Evoluton (ToE), no. It was abiogenesis, which, as we get tired of repeating ad nauseum is another thing altogether.

 

[painted wolf]

Hoyle is also known for Hoyle's fallacy Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But hey, every brilliant scientist gets something wrong... even Einstein. They are after all only human.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

He was a great astronomer, but harbored a few crackpot notions in other fields.

 

[Yerda]

Sure, but since I'm not a Biologist...It was abiogenesis, which, as we get tired of repeating ad nauseum is another thing altogether.

The mistake that creationists make when they come in and moan "evolution isn't true because the big bang is a lie!" is not in the same category as Fred Hoyle applying his mathematics to what he called Neo-Darwinism. Although he apparently did criticise that scientific field he also wrote on chemical evolution. He claimed the difficulties present in Mendelian genetics underwrote the general flaws in Darwinistic explanations of species. He appeared to be skeptical toward the appearance of genes by terrestrial evolution.

"all genes in present day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecological conditions permitted them to be so."

Source: Mathematics of Evolution. (Fred Hoyle).

I probably don't have to explain this, but from college courses in life and evolution, enzymology, and molecular genetics I would draw the conclusion that what he believes is in contrast to much of modern biology including evolutionary theory.

 

[painted wolf]

He claimed the difficulties present in Mendelian genetics underwrote the general flaws in Darwinistic explanations of species. He appeared to be skeptical toward the appearance of genes by terrestrial evolution.

Mendel supports Darwin... Genetics is a tricky subject.

"all genes in present day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecological conditions permitted them to be so."

Not entirely... mind you at the time (originally written in the 1980's) was before the genome projects and the much deeper insight that they brought.

Also he was attacking evolution to push his own idea... panspermia... which faces all the same problems as evolution plus a few others.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey guys!....are we done here?

When I was taught evolution....it was done by priests and nuns.
You might suspect some bias...but I think they were thorough and fair.

Here's what I recall....
There are two basic portions to evolution.
Both are needed for "natural selection" to be effective.
First, reproduction goes to the quick...the strong... the intelligent...etc.
Second, extinction goes to the species that fails to develop these traits.

As these functions can be seen first hand, then only a small stretch of the imagination is used to explain why T-Rex is no more than bones in your local science museum.
When a species fails to continue, 'something' got in the way.
The species simply failed to adapt. Too much heat...not enough rain...lack of food...too many predators...etc.
Any species having whatever it takes...continues onward.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Thief here...Hey guys!....are we done here?

When I was taught evolution....it was done by priests and nuns.
You might suspect some bias...but I think they were thorough and fair.

Here's what I recall....
There are two basic portions to evolution.
Both are needed for "natural selection" to be effective.
First, reproduction goes to the quick...the strong... the intelligent...etc.
Second, extinction goes to the species that fails to develop these traits.

As these functions can be seen first hand, then only a small stretch of the imagination is used to explain why T-Rex is no more than bones in your local science museum.
When a species fails to continue, 'something' got in the way.
The species simply failed to adapt. Too much heat...not enough rain...lack of food...too many predators...etc.
Any species having whatever it takes...continues onward.

If nuns and priests can accept evolution (After all, evolution and creation need not be entirely mutually exclusive) then why do the majority of creationists reject it?

I still think it's somewhat odd that people still deny it... But im odd in other ways haha

GhK.

 

[Rough_ER]

This swine flu business is really starting to effect the health service near when i live. They are understaffed and can't cope. I called the Doctor's office the other day and all I heard was crackin' down the line.

*Sigh.*

 

[painted wolf]

And this is just the first round... when flu season hits in full force we will find out just how bad the "swine flu" is.

wa:do