So can that French scientist Didier Raoult, who discovered the mimivirus, come out of the doghouse now? He was confined for doubting Darwin. But who really has time for Darwin now?
It’s absurd? Yes, so? One thing we’ll need to get more used to is unblinking absurdities spouted in the name of “science.”At least this one isn’t particularly harmful.
The Firstborn hypothesis (we achieved intelligence before extraterrestrials) lines up with the view that humans are unique but sees that status as temporary.
Researchers: F. primaevus’ powerful shoulders and elbows that are similar to today’s living burrowing animals … Furthermore, the animals found were a mixture of multiple mature adults and young adults, suggesting these were truly social groups as opposed to just parents raising their young.
Already complex? No intermediate forms? Where have we heard that before?
So was there a single “ancestral mammal” or is it a common design (convergent evolution)? Either is quite plausible today.
Researchers: “It was previously thought that the only genes that could spread through a population were those that caused a benefit ‘right now’ (in the environment that the population is experiencing at that point in time).” That’s Darwinism. And Darwinism is becoming comprehensively out of date.
New Scientist: “Today, evolution remains one of the most powerful ideas in science but, as with all good ideas, it is evolving ” Sure, but if evolution is evolving, Darwinism is dead. Which is fine with us. It’s a big world out there. Making everything sound like Darwin said it is not the way to explore that world.
Eric Holloway argues that the evidence does not really support common descent, not the way Talk Origins believes and we were taught in school.
It seems that there aren’t many technologies that humans have invented that haven’t been done before us.
At New Scientist: Some plants change without changing genetically, in their quest to survive. This just in: The Selfish Gene has left the building in tears. They shouldn’t even have been discussing this.
At New Scientist: “‘Yeast and bacteria have fundamentally different ways of turning DNA into protein, and this seemed like a really, really strange phenomenon,’ he says.” They ain’t seen nothing yet. If you subtract the “random mutation” from “natural selection,” what’s left of Darwinism? By the time the Raging Woke hammer down Darwin’s statue, chances are the New Scientist crowd will have forgotten who the old Brit toff even was. Shrug.
At New Scientist: “But evolution can also occur through a non-adaptive process called genetic drift, whereby a gene may become dominant in a population purely by chance… ‘Genetic drift can definitely be a significant driver of evolution,’ says Miles.”
At The Economist: “These findings muddy Darwin’s concept of speciation as a slow and gradual process. Biologists now know that in the right circumstances, and with the help of hybridisation, new species can emerge and consolidate themselves in a mere handful of generations. That is an important amendment to evolutionary theory. “
Does anyone remember Darwin’s claim: “It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” Yes, that “daily, hourly” thing seems quaint to us too. It probably even seems quaint over at New Scientist, given the stuff they’re saying now.