I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the
reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long -
that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other
topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this
forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view;
just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion.
If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution,
then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum.
This will be my last reponse also.
I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone;
anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who
really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss
the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution.
So, if your think that I am "Completely wrong"; if you think I know nothing
about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum
where you want us to discuss. I'll show up.
You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my
challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the
movement against Darwinian Evolution?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only:
Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight
modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The "organ" composing every
other organ you have - the cell is another.
You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution
will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda
circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements
are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics,
or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore
cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!)
I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One
of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the
experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and
ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the
situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were
outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion
scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people
themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it
turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to
cold fusion.
If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let
the matter drop.
- Jed
