Darwinist snow-job consisting of esoteric high-falutin gobbledygook
An abstract of a scientific paper said,
The problem with critics of evolution theory is that they are too dumb to understand this stuff.
One of the advantages of evolution theory was the elegance of its simplicity --natural selection operating on random mutations. Now it looks like the evolutionary process itself is so complex that it was "intelligently designed" ---so we are back to the idea of ID
A scenario for the evolution of a simple spherical multicellular organism from a single eukaryotic cell is proposed. Its evolution is based on environmentally induced alterations in the cell cycle, which then, by the Baldwin effect, become autonomous. Further patterning of this primitive organism--a Blastaea, could again involve environmentally induced signals like contact with the substratum, which could then become autonomous, by, perhaps, cytoplasmic localization and asymmetric cell division. Generating differences between cells based on positional information is probably very primitive, and is well conserved; its relation to asymmetric cell division is still unclear. Differentiation of new cell types can arise from non equivalence and gene duplication. Periodicity also evolved very early on. The origin of gastrulation may be related to mechanisms of feeding. The embryo may be evolutionarily privileged and this may facilitate the evolution of novel forms. Larvae are secondarily derived and direct development is the primitive condition as required by the continuity principle
The problem with critics of evolution theory is that they are too dumb to understand this stuff.
One of the advantages of evolution theory was the elegance of its simplicity --natural selection operating on random mutations. Now it looks like the evolutionary process itself is so complex that it was "intelligently designed" ---so we are back to the idea of ID
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/10/2011 07:03:00 PM
4 Comments:
Your post is laughable. Evolution is about biology. Biology is a very complex subject. Therefore, in-depth examinations of evolution will likely be very complex. Your statement "Now it looks like the evolutionary process itself is so complex that it was "intelligently designed" ---so we are back to the idea of ID" is patently absurd. You're basically saying "I don't understand it, therefore goddidit".
Did you really expect evolutionary theory to remain as relatively simple as it was in Darwin's day? Would it not be reasonable to suppose that as more in-depth examinations of evolution are conducted, that those examinations would become necessarily more detailed and complex the more we learn about it? Look at cells. At first we thought they were relatively simple blobs. Now we know that they are intricate biological entities with many components. The complexity of the language used to describe cells has risen in tandem with the increased level of knowledge we have about them.
Leave the science to the scientists. Your weak attempt to conflate evolutionary theory with ID just because, gee, the words are all hard and stuff, just marks you as a risible dolt. Thanks, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
>>>>>Leave the science to the scientists.<<<<<<
Bozo, you missed this sarcastic statement in my post --
The problem with critics of evolution theory is that they are too dumb to understand this stuff
If scientists cannot explain evolution theory in terms that laypeople can understand, how can laypeople be blamed for not acccepting it?
You really missed the point here, you stupid fathead--
Scientists' response to criticisms of evolution theory has been to raise the level of complexity of the theory to the point where, ironically, evolution itself appears to be "intelligently designwd."
It's an abstract of a scientific paper -- aimed at experts in the field -- and not aimed at laymen.
>>>>>It's an abstract of a scientific paper -- aimed at experts in the field -- and not aimed at laymen.<<<<
Doesn't matter --- it is still worthless crap
And how does this crap help our technological competitiveness?
Post a Comment
<< Home