Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (30768)	10/15/2012 4:26:07 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 69300

This stuff is hilarious!! <<What if Darwin’s theory of evolution – or, at least, Darwin’s theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school and believe we understand it – is, in crucial respects, not entirely accurate? Such talk, naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage, or, in the case of Richard Dawkins, into even more of a rage than usual. >> You are right.... this dipshit is clueless... little would "liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage...". There is all sorts of unanswered questions. This is just more projection by these "black and white" nutcases that son't seem to have a clue that all theories are "in progress" and constantly revised. What an ass. <Darwin’s theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school > Ummm, a-hole: you mean as opposed to a guy with a white beard made all the animals at the same time?? I think what you learned was just about good enough. Exactly... so what if there is a hell of a lot more too it than "Darwinism"... there probably IS! ha ha He still was A LOT closer to the truth than these morons thinking every one was poofed up in 7 days! LOL OTOH: <<There are a handful of examples showing that environmentally-induced changes can be passed from one generation to the next. In nearly all of these examples, the changes disappear after one or two generations, so they couldn’t effect permanent evolutionary change.>> He's talking through his hat here... this stuff is just coming out now. It's absolutely of critical importance in understanding the way things work and we have NO CLUE as to what can be passed on or not. He's right though... there IS evolution and these wacked out morons that are "all upset", and are running around claiming evolution "false" because the particulars haven't been worked out are really just showing their ignorance about the basics of all of science. Kinda funny. Reminds me of these kooks that have their undys in a bind because there is all sorts of evidence that "Mutations arent random".... ummm, dipshits... Darwin didn't even know what a gene was... let alone "random mutation"!!! LOL Further more... I'm not sure Darwin would be surprised if some aquired traits could be passed down! Message 28474724 DAK

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (30768)	10/17/2012 11:05:10 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Winning images submitted from the 2011 Astronomy Photographer of the Year. wimp.com

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (30768)	10/19/2012 10:42:35 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

"Burkeman’s article represents the most self-serving, lazy, overblown, and irresponsible strain of science journalism. He lays out strong charges against modern evolutionary biology, and then doesn’t bother to consult a single expert to see if those charges stick. He touts epigenesis to the skies, but doesn’t bother to find out whether its proponents may have exaggerated its evolutionary importance. (That wouldn’t have required much digging!) Burkeman apparently lacks the ability to adjudicate claims and controversies in biology. Granted, we don’t expect all journalists to be able to do this, but if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you ask the experts. Finally, Burkeman is not even a science writer—he’s a “features” writer. What business does he have telling the public that everything they know about evolution is wrong? He appears to be motivated far more by an animus against Richard Dawkins, and a desire to write catchy and sensationalistic science journalism, than by a desire to get the facts." Good article! He really cuffs Burkeman (and his uneducated followers) around!