Things evolution cannot explain.

[Gob]

In a severe blow to the credibility of evolutionary science, biologist Richard Dawkins admitted today that Darwin’s theory of evolution could offer no rational explanation for the continued existence of creationists.

The process of natural selection sees genes which provide an advantage in the battle for survival being preserved across generations, but scientists can find no useful purpose for the gene which leads people to believe that the earth was created in only six days about 10,000 years ago.

‘It’s a flaw in our argument, for sure,’ said Dawkins today. ‘By any reading of evolutionary theory, creationists ought to have died out ages ago. They serve no function in the planet’s ecosystem, and no other species has survived so long while in such fundamental disagreement with observable reality. If I wasn’t such an ardent believer in secular materialism, I’d wager this is really troubling Darwin in the afterlife.’

Despite Dawkins’ concession, scientists are quick to point out that recent years have seen significant advances in our understanding of the evolutionary history of creationists. Not so long ago biology was unable to trace the emergence of the species in the fossil record, but a seemingly close correlation between modern-day American creationists and National Rifle Association members suggests they descended from a group of early hunter-gatherers who exploited another sub-group naive enough to think a man wouldn’t use deadly force to protect his property – a group that is itself all but extinct except in small British enclaves where Liberal Democrats continue to thrive.

Not all biologists are convinced by this explanation, however, and a number of mavericks still cite creationists as evidence of a process of ‘natural aberration’ in which nature sometimes gets it spectacularly wrong, a theory popularised as ‘unintelligent design’. And, like their closest living relative the ostrich, the creationists have benefited considerably from the efforts of conservationists. A vast building programme dating back centuries has provided large unheated refuges in most Western towns, and some creationists have formed closed communities to strengthen their resistance to the advances of modernity. Scientists also suspect that a strong distaste for abortion and homosexuality has probably helped keep population sizes up.

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2012/04/14/e ... s-dawkins/

[rubato]

We'll always need cannon fodder, drain cleaners, and negative examples to point to and scare our children and nephews and nieces with. "If you don't study in school you could wind up a Republican, or a Catholic!" "You don't want to be a laughing stock, do you?"

Mind you, drain cleaners and cannon fodder provide useful service and we should respect them for it.



yrs,
rubato

[dales]

I would never want my girls to become bigots.

Which to my knowledge they are not.

Live and let live.

[dgs49]

One of Ann Coulter's books contains quite a lengthy chapter - fully documented with footnotes - outlining scores of phenomena that "evolution" cannot explain, or that flatly contradict the current orthodoxy.

It is the kind of thing that Liberals run from, emitting ad hominem barbs from every bodily orifice. For a body of people who accept Global Warming on faith, a cogent argument is not really in the cards.

[Joe Guy]

For a body of people who accept Global Warming on faith, a cogent argument is not really in the cards.

God created global warming. It's in the Bible.

[Gob]

The difference being, when scientists do not know the answer they say so.

Glaciers in one of the world's loftiest mountain ranges have been found to have thickened during recent years, a French scientific finding has shown.

The growth in ice mass on glaciers of the Karakoram Range runs athwart the shrinking trend found in ice, both in the nearby Himalayas and elsewhere in the world, the BBC News website said on Monday.

The University of Grenoble study, published in the Nature Geoscience journal, relied on data gathered by satellite between 1999 and 2008. During this period, the mass of ice in the Karakoram region grew "marginally," albeit with wide variations between glaciers.

The Karakoram Range spans international borders among India, Pakistan and China, and holds the world's second-highest mountain, K2.

Researchers were unsure as to the cause of the thickening trend.

"We don't really know the reason," lead researcher Julie Gardelle told BBC News.


http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-n ... -glo/64110

Religious bods claim that god has the answers.

[Grim Reaper]

One of Ann Coulter's books contains quite a lengthy chapter - fully documented with footnotes - outlining scores of phenomena that "evolution" cannot explain, or that flatly contradict the current orthodoxy.

How about some examples of these so-called contradictions? I'm willing to bet that most of them aren't really contradictions and are just a result of not really understanding the source material or evolution in general.

And the few that might be contradictions are really just blank spots that haven't been filled in yet. And thus are more "we don't know for sure" rather than "this is contradictory evidence".

[rubato]

One of Ann Coulter's books contains quite a lengthy chapter - fully documented with footnotes - outlining scores of phenomena that "evolution" cannot explain, or that flatly contradict the current orthodoxy.

It is the kind of thing that Liberals run from, emitting ad hominem barbs from every bodily orifice. For a body of people who accept Global Warming on faith, a cogent argument is not really in the cards.

Ann Coulter's books, footnotes and all, have been shown to be filled with deliberate lies too often for her to be taken as an authority on anything. Further, as a research chemist I find things which are not explained (or predicted) all the time. Only a muffin thinks this invalidates physical science. And it does not lead me to think I should read the bible to find out how to do material science.


For a more fun example, Adele Davis' book was famously footnoted but when someone finally looked them up he proved that the footnotes most often had nothing to do with the points they were used to support; pure hot air.

"... Although she was very popular with the public in general in the 1970s, none of her books were recommended by any significant nutritional professional society of the time. Independent review of the superficially impressive large number of citations to the scientific literature in her books found that the citations often either misquoted the scientific literature or was contradicted by or unsupported by the proposed citation, and that errors in the book averaged at least one per page.[5] One review noted that only 30 of 170 citations in a sample taken from one chapter accurately supported the assertions in her book.[2] Additionally, the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health labelled her probably the single most harmful source of false nutritional information.[1] ... "

yrs,
rubato