One of the most interesting evolutionary studies was done by Linus Pauling,
Ah yes, mad as a hatter towards the end. Thought vast quantities of vitamin C would cure cancer. In large quantities, vitamin C is a poison. And his wife (or was it him himself? Can’t be bothered to check) died of cancer nevertheless.
The story is simple: in the descent of man through evolution, we came upon a diet containing large amounts of vitamin C, found the gene in ourselves that makes vitamin C from sugar an expensive waste of genetic and biochemical energy, and shut it down.
Who shut what down? The relevant gene in vit C synthesis is broken by a mutation. Exactly the same mutation that we share with other primates.
But the evolutionists at the National Academy of Sciences, [etc]
Please cite sources.
There are other examples of this sort of inconsistency. The theory of evolution insists that population genetical fitness, W, drives all organic progress. But, evolutionists insist that there is some sort of population problem, that can be solved by reproductive restraint, practised mostly by evolutionists. By their own theory, they are naturally selecting themselves out of existence.
Where did this come from? What, actually, are you on about? Looks rather group selectionist to me as it stands. Which means it’s standing on very shaky ground.
Or take the way they talk about science. Evolution, they will insist, is the best science
Who’s this they?
but try to find an evolutionist with some sort of understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology,
Take a look in
Nature. Look for the names at the top of the papers and letters.
the law of succession
Huh? I fail to see what the monarchy has to do with it. What ‘law’ is this?
or Bayes Theorem, for example. They will insist on double-blind experimentation, a technique almost impossible to apply to evolution/creation debates
Since when was science decided by battles of evidence with unarmed opponents?
or research supporting evolutionary thinking.
Huh? Be specific.
All these inconsistencies are hypocritical. The very things evolutionists advocate form our lives, they themselves turn away from in practical matters. The only exception I know of appeared in evolutionary nazi-ism, where the evolutionists in Hitler's regime encouraged Hitler's final solution and genocide, to create a master race.
Naturalistic fallacy.
I hate hypocrisy, and this makes me wonder about the value of evolutionary thinking.
Personally, I hate arrogant ignoramuses, and this makes me wonder about the ability of creationists to think. (Please only take that personally if the cap fits.)
™ Version 4.2
