Another excruciatingly obnoxious headline

[Frank J]

In yet another pathetic sell-out to cheap sensationalism, the Yahoo
article is titled: "Evolution Theory Challenged:"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

Now how many people are actually going to read the article, or better
yet, read further to see exactly what this particular finding means
for biological evolution in general, or human evolution? How many will
see that it in no way helps the alternate hypotheses of human origins
from which anti-evolution activists are in fact * retreating *? And
how many will just remember the sound bite, and the next opportunity
say, "I hear they found a fossil that disproves evolution"?

Remember. Every single finding like this is peddled by * some * anti-
evolution activists as "the" smoking gun that falsifies evolution. The
fact that they almost never challenge each other on the impossibility
that they can't all be "the" smoking gun is reason enough to suspect
that most of them * know * evolution is not in the least bit of
trouble.

Why else would they be retreating into "don't ask, don't tell what the
designer did, when, or how"?

[David Canzi -- non-mailable]

In article <1186695310....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In yet another pathetic sell-out to cheap sensationalism, the Yahoo
>article is titled: "Evolution Theory Challenged:"

In a similar vein, a year or two ago I saw the headline
"Relativity Theory Is Special"

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

[Raving]

On Aug 9, 5:35 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In yet another pathetic sell-out to cheap sensationalism, the Yahoo
> article is titled: "Evolution Theory Challenged:"
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution
In yet another pathetic sell-out to cheap sensationalism, the Yahoo

article is titled: "Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_on_sc/artificial_life

[Dan Drake]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:56:44 UTC, dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David
Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:

> In article <1186695310....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >In yet another pathetic sell-out to cheap sensationalism, the Yahoo
> >article is titled: "Evolution Theory Challenged:"
>
> In a similar vein, a year or two ago I saw the headline
> "Relativity Theory Is Special"

A classic! (And I almost didn't read it because the subject line looked
like something that would merely be annoying.)

--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

[Frank J]

I agree, because those microscopic organisms will not have had the
advantages of 4 billion years of natural selection, and would likely
be gobbled up by those organisms that have. Plus the anti-evolution
activists will be sure to note that they were "intelligently
designed." But they will still be sure to conflate abiogenesis with
evolution.