Religions > Atheism > Santa Barbara scientist pinpoint the development of vision
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"chibiabos" |
| Date: |
24 Oct 2007 01:22:50 PM |
| Object: |
Santa Barbara scientist pinpoint the development of vision |
http://independent.com/news/2007/oct/23/ucsb-scientists-claim-have-pinpo
inted-evolution-vi/
or
http://tinyurl.com/2pg72l
Actually, the fact of this does not surprise me, although the detective
work was impressive. As I understand it, vision arose independently
several different times in evolutionary history. This appears to be one
of those times.
Note also the direct comment about "anti-evolutionist theory," probably
referring to irreducible complexity, in the article.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa Barbara scientist pinpoint the development of vision |
24 Oct 2007 03:22:59 PM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
http://independent.com/news/2007/oct/23/ucsb-scientists-claim-have-pinpo
inted-evolution-vi/
Actually, the fact of this does not surprise me, although the detective
work was impressive. As I understand it, vision arose independently
several different times in evolutionary history. This appears to be one
of those times.
Note also the direct comment about "anti-evolutionist theory," probably
referring to irreducible complexity, in the article.
I strongly dislike that comment. Saying that this "refutes
anti-evolutionist theory that mutations cannot produce new traits in
animals" is saying that the creationists actually have a theory of the
origin of sight that needed to be seriously refuted. The phrasing gives
support to those who claim creationism is a real science.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa Barbara scientist pinpoint the development of vision |
24 Oct 2007 05:47:13 PM |
|
|
In article <9itzc90mqbbw$.3koy8i4d669p$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@....com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
http://independent.com/news/2007/oct/23/ucsb-scientists-claim-have-pinpo
inted-evolution-vi/
Actually, the fact of this does not surprise me, although the detective
work was impressive. As I understand it, vision arose independently
several different times in evolutionary history. This appears to be one
of those times.
Note also the direct comment about "anti-evolutionist theory," probably
referring to irreducible complexity, in the article.
I strongly dislike that comment. Saying that this "refutes
anti-evolutionist theory that mutations cannot produce new traits in
animals" is saying that the creationists actually have a theory of the
origin of sight that needed to be seriously refuted. The phrasing gives
support to those who claim creationism is a real science.
Yes, it is perhaps unfortunate that the authors chose to draw attention
to creationism that way, but we have people in this very newsgroup who
do the same thing every day, so I don't have a major problem when
mainstream science reporters do it once in a while.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
