Re: Scientific Discoveries That Suggest Evolution Is False?

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/15/24 12:27 AM, jillery wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 7/9/24 8:52 PM, jillery wrote:

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.
>
>

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.
>
>

Hey, it's Microsoft.  Remember the classic choice:  Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.

 
 
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
 
 

https://xkcd.com/386/

That's what everybody does on T.O., including you.  A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me.  Perhaps it has something to
do with free will.  I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.

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