You probably know by now, but you can access for free (at least for a couple of days) a whole slew of articles about evolution on the Science page of New York Times. Most are excellent, as usual (hey, it's not the front page or some lukewarmly-pro-creationist he-said-she-said op-ed they tend to publish every now and then).
Most of the blogospheric responses are to the article by Douglas Erwin. As always, framing something as conflict sells the paper. I don't think we are all eagerly awaiting a 'paradigm shift' in evolutionary biology. Much of the new thinking has been around for decades and is rapidly being absorbed into an ever-richer and ever-better scientific edifice. The best commentary comes from Larry, Greg, PZ and Jason.
Another NYT article I liked was about microbial evolution, written by my SciBling Carl Zimmer.
Finally, Jonathan is not 100% happy with the collection of quotes they put there.
- Log in to post comments
I have not had a chance to blog about the Erwin article, but I agree that what he discussed does not represent a paradigm shift in any major way. And I agree - the microbial evolution article is good stuff.
It's true much of the new thinking has been around for decades, but the New York Times conceding race is real is a breakthrough and a victory for science over P.C. dogma.
Come on folks. It is time for intelligent people to throw away their blinders and look at the absurdity of Evolution. Your professor is not a god, neither was your high school biology teacher. In fact some preachers are preaching the lie of evolutionl. They too have been mesmerized by the sermons of those professors that get a kick out of telling their lies.
We can solve this dispute right now:
Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Wow - it's been a while since I had a Creationist troll on here. As a rarity I'll leave the comment standing so everyone can see the errors of his thinking.