enismirdal: (glorfindel/erestor stick kiss from riven)
[personal profile] enismirdal
There are SO many ways in which this girl is SO wrong!

Polyploidy, yeast mating types, plant pathology, transposable elements, slime moulds, the evolution of that grass species that I should remember that evolved through polyploidy about 50-100 years ago...

...and it's been a few hundred years since people realised Lamarck was talking BS and acquired characteristics, luckily, are NOT inherited.

*is pained*

*wishes she had Professor Parker available so she could write a 10, 000 word dissection of every point in that post*




Played LOTR Trivial Pursuit over Yahoo with a whole bunch of lovelies last night. Was great fun, but I had to go early before the 2nd place and beyond had been decided. For the record, it was Uli who gave all the right answers, not me! Was a giggle having the conference half voice and half typed! Oh, I loved it, I loved it!




I now have 6 Drosophila; two hatched yesterday and another overnight. They all seem to be male, which might make for wonderful slash, but unfortunately won't produce very many offspring until someone invents Drosophila mpreg.




How about it if I post AIHL4 later this afternoon or early evening?

Date: 19 Dec 2004 12:54 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] talullahred.livejournal.com
Erm, I never read the Origin of the Species, but I've been told that Darwin didn't utterlly refute the inheritance of acquired characteristics, he actually had a chapter where he mentioned it as a possibility. Dunno, really, I am taking the word of a third party. It seems that this is a shameful stain people would rather not talk about.

In any case, is this chick for real? Like, dudette, get a book! (or two)

Date: 19 Dec 2004 13:02 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] enismirdal.livejournal.com
Oh, I won't deny that both Mendel and Darwin were basing a lot of their ideas on Lamarckism theories...*realises she phrased the post rather poorly and goes back to sort* Thankfully they didn't manage to prove Lamarckism right, or I feel sorry to anyone who ever got a silly hairstyle because think of their poor children who'd have to inherit that same hairstyle! *grins*

*is relieved that just because Darwin had some good ideas, it doesn't mean everything he says has to be taken as totally gospel, or else we'd have some funny theories going!* *is more a neo-Darwinist type than anything*

And yes, I have met enough of such people in RL that it really isn't that surprising that she is for real too.

Date: 19 Dec 2004 16:20 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tuxedo-elf.livejournal.com
I just read the whole thread... oh dear! Why ever did that girl start a debate when she clearly had no intention of accepting other views?! So glad she was up against much better educated people! Meh, people like her annoy me. Still... must keep an eye on that 'debate' - I'm interested now!

Date: 19 Dec 2004 16:32 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] enismirdal.livejournal.com
I find these debates simultaneously painful and funny.

One the one hand, the girl's ignorance is really, really painful. I find creationists seem to ignore anything that goes on in plants (*bows before the Holy Department of Plant Sciences*), when plants provide some really interesting evidence for evolution. On the other hand, this is so funny because such a small proportion of creationist arguments even remotely stand up properly to scrutiny, as seems to have been deomstrated here!

Date: 19 Dec 2004 16:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ilanin.livejournal.com
Creationists are by no means an uncommon breed. There's a truly terrifying number of them in Cambridge. Including at least one who is doing Part II Geology.

I generally find http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html highly useful in such circumstances.

Date: 19 Dec 2004 16:57 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tuxedo-elf.livejournal.com
My sister, who is at university, studies archaeology. One of her classmates is a Christian who believes that the world was created just after 9am on 27th October 4004BC. Specifically. *However* He’s just been on a dig at cemetery that has been proven to be 5000 years old… the mind boggles.

Date: 19 Dec 2004 22:08 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com
erm, 4004BC was 6008 years ago...

Good to see the reverend Usher's theories doing so well. :)

Date: 19 Dec 2004 22:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tuxedo-elf.livejournal.com
Ooops, oldER is waht I meant! (Good thing it's not ME on the course!)

*Hides*

Date: 20 Dec 2004 13:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
It's a cliche to say 'some of my best friends believe the universe is 6000 years old' but... :)

One of my favorite pieces of evidence is trees which by matching ring-widths have been shown to be over that age.

Date: 19 Dec 2004 20:42 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ilyusha-a.livejournal.com
Oh... my...

As has been said, there are just so many things wrong with that...
I don't know about the biology she mentions, but the geological aspects... she hasn't studied that... or if she has, she didn't exactly take much in...

*rolls eyes* I can remember more than that, and I haven't been in the field for five years!

Lúthien

Date: 19 Dec 2004 22:05 (UTC)
ext_3375: Banded Tussock (Default)
From: [identity profile] hairyears.livejournal.com
there are just so many things wrong with that

I found a possible explanation, other than stupidity (ignorance on its own is curable). As explanations go, though, this is somewhat dismaying: shopping fro Christmas presents in Borders, I saw that many of the serious biology texts have a large red warning printed on the cover:

NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Profile

enismirdal: (Default)
enismirdal

October 2025

M T W T F S S
  123 45
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 29 January 2026 12:19
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios