Comments on: The Voodoo You Do So Well

By: Elleword

Elleword — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 05:48:18 +0000

Science itself has no conclusions one way or the other about how the world was created. Science is a method for finding out what truth is, not a conclusion about the truth. Evolution is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. “The line between foolishness and fraud is thin. Because it is not always easy to tell when that line is crossed, I use the term voodoo science to cover them all: pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience, and fraudulent science.” – Dr Robert Park..I would say that VOODOO SCIENCE can rightly be called “Skepticism For Dummies.” It makes a mockery out of New Age thinking and pseudo-science without using the kind of technical jargon that sometimes alienates lay-people.

By: John aka Jupiter King

John aka Jupiter King — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:37:38 +0000

I concede that MICRO-EVOLUTION (Variations) do occur, that’s why you get different breeds of dogs but they are still dogs, MACRO-EVOLUTION (the changing of one animal to a completely new animal) does NOT occur, a dog will always produce dogs no matter how many breeds of dogs there are.

the term Micro-evolution is simply a fancy way of saying variation

By: Question

Question — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:14:23 +0000

If my environment required me to grow a tail, could I? or Wings? (Wings would be bloody great actually I would not need to drive)

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:54:34 +0000

A new species is not a new Animal, there are different species of bear,(but it remains a bear) different species of fly,(but they remain flies) different species of apes (but they remain apes) etc. Variations within a kind may cause different species of a particular animal but it never creates an entirely new animal, that is the point we’re making.

By: jamie mullen

jamie mullen — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:41:36 +0000

Robert can you not read? Of course some or even most mutations are either harmful or benign but a minority of them cause an animal to better survive in it’s enviroment causing them to procreate and pass on said mutation and after a million years or so this happens a few times wich leads eventually to the creation of new species. I can see how you people might have a problem with scientific theories regarding the beggining of the universe which is more at the forefront of scientific knowledge but I do not understand how this basic law of nature is so hard to grasp.

By: John aka Jupiter King

John aka Jupiter King — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:01:58 +0000

I stand by my article Jamie,even though I can see you have an issue with it.

That's all I have to say, and I will pray for you despite our disagreements.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:29:47 +0000

Jamie, if mutations are harmful (which they are according to the above article) you’re not helping your case much

By: A ? on mutation

A ? on mutation — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:24:04 +0000

"The disadvantages of mutation are: a) it causes physical deformities. b) It causes genetic diseases."

"Polydactylity is an example of a physical deformity found in humans but it is harmless. Individuals with such a condition have an extra finger on the hand or an extra toe"

How is having an extra finger or toe not a problem?

If you're missing your big toe for example, you get thrown off balance, having excess or lack of anything is not a beneficial mutation,

"Gene mutation gives rise to genetic diseases such as color blindness, albinism, hemophilia and retinoblastoma"

And how are these not a detriment?

By: to Jamie

to Jamie — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:16:47 +0000

I read it Jamie, nobody is disagreeing with you in the fact that mutations do occur,they do not however create a totally new organism, there are different variations of animals (cats for example) but they still are cats. There may be siamese cats etc but they are still cats

By: Question

Question — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:08:38 +0000

You assume?

You know a fossil died,you can tell many things, what it was,what it ate, etc. but I think Robert's point was you can't tell if it ever reproduced.

(though pregnant things such as turtles have been found,which were by the way pregnant with turtles)

No fossil is evidence for evolution, a fossil is dead, period.