Re: Scientific Discoveries That Suggest Evolution Is False?

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:21:36 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/9/24 1:23 AM, jillery wrote:

MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
proponentsists recently.  The following is an example:
 
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
 
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
 
 From the article:
 
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
 
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
 
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
necessary:
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
 
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
 
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
 
 
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
 
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
 

I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.

It's both unethical and irresponsible to post Creationist and ID
claims as hard facts without identifying them as baseless opinions and
without identifying the source of these opinions.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge