decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Even so, it isn't yet fully explained. | 661 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And yet, evolution is NOT a fact of life.
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 05:40 AM EDT
Evolution, as the term is commonly understood, does not work, can not work, and has never been seen to work. If you do the arithmetic, it turns out to be so improbable as to be not even worth wasting time on. Think about mutation rates, the fraction of those which are useful, the probability of a male and female with useful mutations meeting and breeding, etc, and put even your best estimates of numbers in and you will find that getting from a single celled amoeba to even an insect, far less man, will need umpteen times longer that the currently estimated age of the universe.

Where evolution seems to work, sort of, is in single cells such as bacteria which reproduce by division, and the statistics are very different indeed. Many people such as geneticists have great difficulty in accepting that it is possible with larger creatures, except in very limited ways.

Evolution as a concept was introduced by people so proud and arrogant that, unlike many highly competent scientists and other professionals, they refused to acknowledge the existence of a Creator. The fact that the Biblical account is widely misrepresented by supposedly religious people, who seemingly can't read, or at least can't read Hebrew, helped even more to confuse the issue. Even Darwin himself recanted in the end, when he saw the impossibility.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Even so, it isn't yet fully explained.
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 07:55 AM EDT
Which means it can't be a fact.

It's a matter of belief, it's a religion. Fact is, it seems to work (most of the
time :-).

It is this demand for certainty, this need for absolutes, that sends the bulk of
humanity haring down all sorts of stupid paths, at the behest of confidence
tricksters and con-men, that leads to so much strife in the world.

Oh, and I include in my list of tricksters and con-men the liberal-arts
journalists who preach about what science can and has done (without bothering to
check their facts first :-)

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )