alt.education

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>Jd wrote:
>>>In the first place, it isn't a 'law', it is a principle or hypothesis,
>>>despite what people may have put into print. Secondly, I would need much
>>>more detail before I would consider this a refutation.
>>>
>>>In general, Dollo's Principle is that evolution is not reversible, ., you
>>>cannot use the same path twice. It does NOT state you cannot have the same
>>>features, just that you need to arrive at them in a different fashion. Since
>>>this study appears to be at a DNA level, I am not sure if the pathways have
>>>been properly mapped.
>>>
>>>Even if this shows a repeat of the exact pathway, it does not overturn the
>>>principle. It simply means it must be looked at again and refined. I don't
>>>need any 'faith' for this, just sound scientific principles.
>>
>>According to the article, it does indeed overturn the principle...
>
>No. It appears to violate the generalization. That merely means that
>the generalization is not universal. Similarly, Einsteinian
>relativity did not "overturn the principles" expressed in Newton's
>Laws; it found conditions where they were not accurate. Scientists
>still use Newton for most of mechanics that does not deal with
>relativistic speeds.

Einsteinian relativity is in error. It breaks down on the Planc scale. Maxwell and Farrady
pointed out that Newtons work was insufficient wrt background space. Einstein and Newtons
theories were in error.

>>>> And the intelligence of pytoplankton has recently astounded scientists
>>>> also:
>>>
>>>Are you really that stupid? This is nothing special, just new to a species
>>>this small. And it is not 'intelligence'! Talk about an inability to think
>>>critically! Again, how is my 'faith' challenged?
>>
>>Again, the article explaines that scientists were surprised at the aforementioned finding..
>
>Scientists WANT and EXPECT to be surprised by new information. If
>everything happens as predicted, then we don't learn as much (or at
>least as interesting information).
>
>>You Mr. Powell are exhibiting cultic behavior by which the "status quo" cannot be challenged.
>
>Clearly in each of those examples, the status quo IS challenged.
>However the status quo is NOT "overturned".
>
>lojbab

Wrong. The status quo is overturned. It may be years before you hear about it since they want to
break the news slowly so as not to cause you to lose your "faith" in science.

The "Big Bang" is history (and error at that).

Jd