- Thread starter
- #101
Syriusly, you criticize me for using the Bible as hypothesis when you use the NYT. One of the most liberal-biased rags of our generation. Even Popular Science is better for science, but probably above your level ha ha.
Did I quote the New York Times on science? I didn't even realize I was doing so but I would have no problem quoting anything from the NYT's science section.
If you think that the New York Times is one of the most biased organizations of our generation then I think you are just showing what a partisan idiot you are. While I think the NYT is partisan- there are tons that are far worse- even more so- there are few- if any- newspapers in America- with a better journalistic reputation than the NYT.
The funny thing is that you didn't even attempt to read the article. But then again real science is hard.
But then again you believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark that floated above the Himilayas 6,000 years ago....so we have to understand your limitations.
Already you lost the argument using ad hominem attack in the OP and again in your reply. .
LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.
Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.
>>Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit<<
What's to discuss? HGT's been around for a while. What did you find fascinating? It does destroy Darwin doesn't it? Another nail in the coffin for tree of life? We can discuss that. I find that fascinating.
One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.
What do I find fascinating about HGT? That for most of history we didn't believe that this kind of genetic transfer was possible.
How does it 'destroy Darwin'? Darwin postulated on 'the origin of the species' - that modern species all descend from earlier ancestor species. Darwin of course didn't know about genetics or genes when he came up with his theory.
What has happened in the last 150 years is that our knowledge about evolution has expanded as our knowledge of biology has expanded. The science- including genetics- still show for example that modern whale species descended from earlier whale species which in turn came from earlier land species. H.G.T. doesn't change any of that- but it does show there are additional ways that genes can transfer- which is fascinating and will need to be incorporated into any genetic research of any species.