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: Greg or e who wrote (37941)	6/24/2013 9:17:51 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I like this: Along with this latest garbage science from this arrogant prick Meyers & his pals B&D (& whoever else) they out do themselves with more arguments from ignorance, they can't produce decent science any more than they can come up with a brilliant teology to follow it up. Only another weak touted campaign of slippery semantics mixed in with half baked ID inferrences with pseudo science to back it up. Its still garbage science as this critque of Meyers latest attempt to bamboozle the rubes shows, and how he hopelessly omits so many other's long research & hard won data, just as intentionally as before. But his appeal is once again to the mass choir so ready to recieve the neat little toasted wafer on their tounges instead of appreciating good science. In this crtitque we find out just why Meyers still doesnt understand phylogenetics or the taxonomy anymore than they did in 1984 with creationist thinking still in full effect regarding the fossil record & common descent. pandasthumb.org (A hopless prick that sells books, but not a prick in the sense of being a sharp tack , basically not past college 101 level with everything he attempts to write about )

To: Greg or e who wrote (37941)	6/24/2013 9:18:32 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Meyers book is already ancient history, heres partly why: Darwin’s Doubt is festooned with illustrations, mostly redrawn from other sources in a rather strange cartoon-like format also found in other recent ID books. However, there is never an illustration like these: A. THE “EXPLOSION” TOOK AT LEAST 30 MILLION YEARS, AND WAS NOT REALLY “INSTANTANEOUS” NOR PARTICULARLY “SUDDEN” Instead, we are treated to ultrasimple figures of the times of origin of “phyla”, which date back at least to the 1970s, although they’ve been endlessly copied by creationists/ID proponents and remain current in those circles because they convey the impression of “sudden” origin. Figures resembling this: The reality is that, even on the most conservative interpretation of the fossil record which relegates all of the classic Ediacaran fossils to the stem below the bilaterian common ancestor, or to cnidarians, or to even more remote positions, we still have this sequence observed in the fossil record: