news.uns.purdue.edu— The crystal structure of a molecule from a primitive fungus has served as a time machine to show researchers more about the evolution of life from the simple to the complex.
Jan 2, 2008View in Crawl 4
Honest scientists can disagree. Not everyone has the same conclusions about the data as you.A few thousand data points on the evolutionary tree (actually, more like a few million or so) is relatively few compared to the trillions upon trillions that would need to be evaluated to conclude that humans evolved from proto-bacteria. Thus, a "RELATIVELY few data points" is accurate. You left off the "relatively" in your reply.We scientists and engineers produce all the time. We just don't deal with the theoretical but also the practical and existing. That is why we have confidence in our assessment that the evolutionary tree has tenuous scientific backing.
"Anyway, there are fanatics in science who demand that everyone do science THEIR way and reach the same conclusions as THEY do."Ok, so where's your evidence for this assertion?
Wow God has 25 million US greenbacks to give me in a business transaction? Great, put the "In God We Trust" bills into my secret swiss account and I'll transfer his "In Humanity I Don't" greenbacks to you!
Humanist Indoctrination? Is that what you are calling science these days? It's all really simple, though. The rules of science are clear. If you want intelligent design to be taught in schools then you have to go through the regular scientific process. You need to publish peer reviewed papers, and come up with real evidence to back up your theories. You can't expect to just come up with something crazy and have it taught in schools immediately. Of course if you are not interested in going through the process you can always home school or send your kids to private school.
mattrmcgJan 3, 2008
Sad that I know the Sved units for the two different parts...
Closed AccountJan 4, 2008
Honest scientists can disagree. Not everyone has the same conclusions about the data as you.A few thousand data points on the evolutionary tree (actually, more like a few million or so) is relatively few compared to the trillions upon trillions that would need to be evaluated to conclude that humans evolved from proto-bacteria. Thus, a "RELATIVELY few data points" is accurate. You left off the "relatively" in your reply.We scientists and engineers produce all the time. We just don't deal with the theoretical but also the practical and existing. That is why we have confidence in our assessment that the evolutionary tree has tenuous scientific backing.
nitsujJan 4, 2008
"Anyway, there are fanatics in science who demand that everyone do science THEIR way and reach the same conclusions as THEY do."Ok, so where's your evidence for this assertion?
hchargerJan 5, 2008
Wow God has 25 million US greenbacks to give me in a business transaction? Great, put the "In God We Trust" bills into my secret swiss account and I'll transfer his "In Humanity I Don't" greenbacks to you!
jbellaJan 14, 2008
Humanist Indoctrination? Is that what you are calling science these days? It's all really simple, though. The rules of science are clear. If you want intelligent design to be taught in schools then you have to go through the regular scientific process. You need to publish peer reviewed papers, and come up with real evidence to back up your theories. You can't expect to just come up with something crazy and have it taught in schools immediately. Of course if you are not interested in going through the process you can always home school or send your kids to private school.