Skip to main content


The Art of Pulling Things Out of a Hat.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
I started reading this article "DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution" thinking it was science based. Lo and Behold, after a few paragraphs, I was hit with the same ole, same ole conjecture to prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution wrong. The comments exposed the sheer ignorance of those who identify themselves as Creationists, except for one lonely (thinking) soul who felt the need to include a common sense opinion... I am so thankful there are people (like Bill Dixon) willing (without animosity) to express scientific ideas of fact and reality. Once again, pity to those who cannot think outside their indoctrinations.


MORE HERE: DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Originally posted to thinkingblue on Thu May 08, 2014 at 07:15 AM PDT.

Also republished by Progressive Atheists.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  i really liked the part (3+ / 0-)

    about who could have put those "letters" in proper order...


  •  funny thing to me is that the ID folks are still (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Catte Nappe, pvasileff

    fighting against Darwin.  Darwin wrote his stuff some 150+ years ago.  Lincoln and Darwin were aware of each other's works  fer chrissakes.

    Right now I note the movie Noah has sparked the "kinds" debate again and I am having to ask ID advocates if a fox and dog share a common ancestor, they answer "yes" at which point I ask why can't they breed?

    PZ Myer's does yeoman duty debunking the IDers but it seems they will never cease arguing, skipping from topic to topic and fallacy to fallacy as they repeat the same old tired arguments.  My question to them if Evolution is not real, why do they take advantage of the various advances we have enjoyed that arise from our understanding of Evolution.  However IDers will never admit that as we see here  

    •  They Set Darwin Up As . . . (0+ / 0-)

      some sort of demigod, and try to establish a "religion" called Darwinism, as if modern-day people adhered strictly to his writings as "holy writ," as if the thinking on evolution had not been refined in the following years. The whole thing is a straw man argument  on many levels and should not be treated seriously enough to debate. Rather, it should be called out for what it is and the discussion ended.

      "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

      by midnight lurker on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:57:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's From That Same 3 Line Subroutine (4+ / 0-)

    that generates all conservative talking points, religious or secular.

    1. Retrieve fact.
    2. Report opposite.
    3. Goto 1.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 08, 2014 at 07:35:23 AM PDT

    •  A dynamic feedback loop of error & disinformation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  Yep, just one glaring example: (0+ / 0-)
        It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.
        They didn't even bother to Google this one or they'd have very quickly found that:
        DNA was isolated, analyzed and recognized as a unique macromolecule in 1869 by Friedrich Miescher
        Watson, Crick, & Franklin did NOT discover DNA

        Not only that, you can easily see chromosomes via a simple microscope. It's quite obvious that they duplicate into two copies, one for each new cell, during mitosis. It's "impossible" to miss, actually.

        Also, "DNA" is NOT genetic material. Genetic material actually is made up of very long polymers with DNA (or sometimes RNA) as the basic building block. But that's not too bad, everyone gets that wrong.

        Sure, I have a PhD in the chemistry/physics of macromolecules, but come on, this is really basic stuff.

  •  There are intriguing features of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    genetic code that suggested it might have evolved. The codons for similar amino acids are themselves similar, so a random mutation is less likely to have a significant effect on the protein's function. There is even a suggestion that a precursor code might have existed of two nucleotide codons and a more limited vocabulary. Since whatever happened to establish the genetic code happened over 3 billion years ago, we aren't likely to have a full account of it very soon.

    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Thu May 08, 2014 at 07:50:59 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site