Letters to the Editor
rupert_c
Published Letters: 1221 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@taliesan
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Breeding is not speciation. There is one species of dog, just many breeds, they are all dogs and all have the basic same structure. Flying squirrels and bats are not the same as one actually flies and the other one glides. When flying squirrels flap their wings can produce sufficient lift to let them take off, then I'll believe you. We have webs also, it is a variation or defect, not a major structural change but it does have an advantage which does work natural selection. Other great apes don't have webs.
I haven't read the creationist propaganda. I'm just too skepictal to go any farther than variation within a species because that is real and demonstratable as far as natural selection is concerned.
Strawman argument, psychological projection, and ad hominem tacts are not part of the scientific method.
I have a BS detector and it goes off everytime some half baked evolutionist tries to outperform a creationist. Their isn't much variation between the types that would be noticed by objective parties, sort of like that Star Trek episode where two enemies were white on one side and black on the other side who hated each other while the humans were mystified as to what their differences were. "He is black on the wrong side!"
Evolutionists label the agent of design "chance" and creationists label it "god".
So let's put the two together and say "God doesn't play dice with the universe." and piss both sides off.
Personally, I think the other apes don't have pockets for a reason.
.
-
@Panask
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You don't have to build a model of the planets as they are observable and follow the same gravitational rules as your "microgravity". The mathematical model predicts the behaivior on both scales accurately and relativistic effects are insignificant.
Your analogy is both spurious and ludicrous.
Trying to "out stupid" the creationists?
There are not any here.
So much for your powers of observation and reasoning.
Incredible, but that's America!
-
@Taliesan - breeding
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cross breeding is not evolution. Ask an evolutionist if species are created by different species crossbreeding.
Creationists wouldn't fall for that one.
-
@Taliesan
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Species are a man made concept and categorisation system based on appearances not upon genetics until just recently. DNA may have a different notion of species than we do. If ffertilisation is successful, then we may assume that the DNA has assumed that the other DNA is OK and tried to put something together and regardless of the outcome, the DNA considered it to be "like" and not "unlike".
Genetic intelligence is not something that we should be able to grasp easily.
Consider what this stuff does? It is also self-correcting, How many people are self-correcting?
Your second paragraph fails to note that I have no problem with variation within a species. We agree on what is happening just not what it means in relaition to evolution. If you mean evolution as change, then I agree with you. If you mean evolution as speciation or radical structural changes, then color me dubious and skeptical. One scientist proposes that the majoirty of racial types all are descended from a fairly recent pair of humans and if you look at all the variation of the types of people in minor skin and surface characteristics, do you dare call it evolution? Isn't variation more prudent and less troublesome. Variation and change are not major reaches and we all are the same race.
You know the ancestors of horses? Uf you look at them, they still are horses, just real tiny. After all those millions of years we only have the three types?
Finally, I don't believe in a magic sky fairy. I believe that religion is programming and psychology. The software is not without some redeeming and endearing qualities.
You know that this survival of the fittest dogma is the conerstone of the state religion.
-
Anonymous
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ah, but they were both Brassicas and that is about as difficult as breeding a wolf and a dog.
Hybridisation is not evolution.
Show be the transition between reptile to mammal and why and how did it work? Live birth, hair, warm blood, placentas and lips so it could suckle on mammary glands which produce milk.
I don't believe the seven day creation story either.
I am just not as guillible as most.
You know that some museums are reworking their entire dinosaur exhibit because they got so much of it wrong. Misplaced bones, wrong assumptions, incomplete data. Yet it was all presented as fact.
The mechanism for change is still not known. Aside from extinction, which is fact not theory.
I'll settle for a winged horse that can fly.
-
@Paulus
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wrong. I am not supporting creationism.
It makes it easy to win arguments when you ignore the other side.
I just don't believe that evolution is anything more than a theory until the mechanism is understood and defined. All the evolutionists have is that these new forms "just happen" and that is about as solid as saying the invisible sky dude did it.
I find both sides to be equally off but if I am not on your team I must be on the other team and that is a cognitive problem which is beyond the scope of this discussion.
"Either you are with us, or you are one of them!!!!"
What passes for scientific discourse.
"Light the torches and let's get 'em!"
Never challenge another person's BELIEF system. Ot makes their veins pop out, sweat exude and froth emit from their pieholes.
I'd say that DEVOlution is the active agent here.
Critical thinking is a lost art.