2013
Die to evolve
Matt Ridley, author of the book “Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters” (2006 Harper Perennial) is known to be a brilliant propagandist of Darwin. Perhaps also for this reason the Wall Street Journal gives him the opportunity to periodically write articles on this topic. In one of these, Ridley candidly writes: “Biological evolution, too, is anti-fragile. The death of unfit individuals is what causes a species to adapt and improve. Some could wrongly interpret here the “improvement” in a minor, reductive sense. In truth, Ridley, like all evolutionists, when speaks of “improvement” of species dreams its major all-comprehensive sense, nothing less than biological macroevolution of all species starting from the “primordial soup”, in other words, the “molecules-to-man” Read More ›
Even supposing ID is not science, it does not automatically mean it is religion, philosophy, or metaphysics
I found a comment by CLADIVS (Claudius) in Good and bad reasons for rejecting ID that is worth highlighting. But without a testable explanation, ID remains in the realm of metaphysics, philosophy or religion, not science. I responded: ID may not be science, but that does not mean automatically it is religion. If I have a coin in a box and shake it, look at it at 11:27 AM on 6/26/13 and determine it is heads. You have no way of scientifically verifying the claim via a process of repeated experiments 10 years from now. You’ll just have to take my word for it. The fact that a true claim about the history of the physical universe is not accessible Read More ›
The stink from Haeckel’s embryos
Darwin lobby’s Kevin Padian denounces misrepresentations of evolution in textbooks
Origin of life: New theory on synthesis of complex organic matter
Habitable planets, hype-able planets, what the diff?
Jerry Coyne – Afraid to Engage – Imagine That!
Over at his Why Evolution is True website, the infamous Jerry Coyne has given his lame excuses for not wanting to take up a genuine offer from ENV’s David Klinghoffer to debate and discuss Steve Meyer’s latest Book Darwin’s Doubt as well as discussing anything else Darwin related. In his “I’m too busy and important to do that’ rant he writes: You ID advocates can also make your case, but the website rules are that we can then ask, before you post further, about your evidence for God The Intelligent Designer. This is the last time I’ll be engaging the Discovery Institute directly on these issues. DIers are not scientists but religious zealots concealing clerical collars beneath threadbare lab coats. I Read More ›
Dawkins mutation in the mind music video: “this is your brain on bad acid”
In the video, Dawkins gets his head split open and then all we see are his brains and eyeballs, then they multiply…. at the end he says, “as for me, I’d rather spread memes than genes anyway.” We then see him tooting his own horn while a dinosaur swallows a shark. The video that Richard Dawkins made for an advertising company in Cannes is like a particularly vivid anti-drug commercial: this is your brain on bad acid, except, of course, that this is a portrait of a brain wrecked by self-importance. Richard Dawkins Meaningless Meme Skip to about 4:50 to see the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn-ixX9edg Enjoy! HT: Mike Gene PSDespite all the sadness in the world, the few glimpses of beauty Read More ›
Symbiosis of life forms “almost hilariously complicated”
Lateral gene transfer from bacteria to humans?
Darwin’s man Nick Matzke attacked Darwin’s Doubt without reading it?
How would the planets appear, at the same distance as the moon?
Awesome. Here.
Credit where credit’s due: P. Z. Myers vs. Daniel Friedmann on Genesis
I’d like to confess two things up-front. First, I know next to nothing about Kabbalah (an ancient Jewish mystical tradition which forms an integral part of the Oral tradition of Judaism). Second, I’m not a big fan of the “day-age” interpretation of Genesis, having been turned off it at the age of twelve, when I learned that birds appeared only 150 million years ago, long after the appearance of land animals (or even mammals, for that matter) – in other words, the reverse of the order in Genesis. But I’d be the first to admit that my own personal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 might well be wrong – in fact, I’m quite sure that it is wrong, in Read More ›