Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Is this site reliable?

  1. #1 Is this site reliable? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    75
    Is evolutionnews.org a decent site to look for information about the theory of evolution? What is wrong with the information?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    No it is not. It is a site maintained by the Discovery Institute which is devoted to the study of intelligent design, an idea that is not scientific. In addition they often twist scientific knowledge on evolution in incorrect ways. I would instead recommend talkorigins.org.


    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    No it is not. It is a site maintained by the Discovery Institute which is devoted to the study of intelligent design, an idea that is not scientific. In addition they often twist scientific knowledge on evolution in incorrect ways. I would instead recommend talkorigins.org.
    Could you provide some examples of false information disseminated by this site?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Here's a quote from one of the articles:

    These fossils revealed a mystery: like other Cambrian fauna, these strange soft-bodied fossils appeared in the fossil record abruptly, without evolutionary precursors.
    The author presents this as a challenge to evolution. It is not. There are many reasons why the fossil record is incomplete in different areas, simply because the likelihood of any individual organism becoming a fossil is rare, and indeed whole lineages may be well under-represented if they lived in areas where conditions for fossilization are unlikely. Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we may not have all the precursors yet doesn't mean they never existed.

    Here is a quote from the PBS website on evolution:

    It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •