I'm an engineer. I have been thoroughly indoctrinated in traditional physics, yet I believe in cold fusion because there are sufficient facts and observations to convince me.
The three example problems with evolution that I mentioned in my last post have no viable explanations. The lame reasoning for these peculiar events given by our trusted scientific community, make me laugh. I was once a dedicated and vocal supporter of The Theory up until my early twenties. As a kid, I gave my poor Sunday school teacher, Mr. Dunkleburger, such a rough time on the subject that he told my Dad I was the son of the devil. I was snowed by the public school system on the subject of evolution, but not any more. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table) Jeff Fink wrote: >When we consider excavated observations ranging from the Cambrian explosion >to "overthrusts" to polystrate tree trunks, it is clear to me that the >theory of evolution is fatally flawed and totally bankrupt. And it is clear to me that you don't know much about biology, or evolution. You sound a little like people who assert with unshakable confidence that cold fusion cannot be real. Do you really suppose there are huge unsolved problems in biology, but hundreds of thousands of biologists worldwide deny that, or they haven't noticed? Again, that's like saying the McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann and hundreds of others make gross errors in calorimetry, but they never noticed or they don't want to admit it. I think you should have more respect for professional knowledge, and for over a hundred years of patient, dedicated research by millions of people. I do not like to see people reject scientific conclusions out of hand without deep knowledge of a subject. This has been the whole problem with cold fusion. People think that the problem is insufficient openness to new ideas, but I think it is mainly insufficient discipline and attention to the conventional rules of science. I am, as Fleischmann says, "a painfully conventional person." If everyone would play by the rules and do their homework, there would be no dispute about cold fusion, and certainly no grave doubts about evolution. >So, where do I go for the truth about our origins? The truth is obvious and indisputable. We are the product of natural selection. It explains everything discovered so far, and I see no likelihood that it will fail to explain some future discovery, such as "rabbits in the Precambrian" (J. S. Haldane's example of how evolution might be falsified). Along the same lines, thomas malloy wrote: >The aforementioned show just infuriated me. What we want is to point >out to the little darlings to rather complex mechanisms behind life. >The structure that turns the flagellum, the electron transfer >mechanism, the optic nerve, DNA in general and it's folding in >particular, come to mind. These things are described in any advanced textbook on biology. No one is trying to prevent kids from learning about them! My kids high school textbooks covered such things. I cannot understand why you are upset. The only dispute is over the origin of this complexity. The biologists who discovered these complex mechanisms also discovered mountains of evidence that the complexity is the result of natural selection. Other people -- who know nothing about biology -- claim that it is the result of some cosmic intelligence at work. Again, this reminds me of skeptics who get upset because calorimeters and mass spectroscopy demonstrates over and over again that cold fusion is real. Why get upset about proven facts? Nature is as it is, and the universe does not care what you think. >It was suggested that I put together a talk and market my services >to schools, IMHO that sounds like fun. I could purchase a copy of >that DVD on cellular mechanisms and take it as a tax deduction. There are any number of good textbooks at schools describing cellular mechanisms. There is no need for you to make one, and especially no need for one that proposes bogus mechanisms to explain these things. We know in great detail how and why cellular mechanisms evolved, and we are learning more every year. We don't need an alternative theory any more than cold fusion scientists need fruitcakes such as Shanahan to tell them why calorimetry doesn't work. - Jed No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM
