Grey Thoughts
27.1.10
 
Abbott says women are valuable...feminists up in arms
Opposition leader Tony Abbott is reported in todays news to have said that women  "shouldn't give themselves away lightly".
"Deputy" Prime Minister Julia Gillard of course was upset at the marks, saying that Abbott shouldn't tell women what to do....Julia prefers her women cheap obviously.


In other news, the government has withdrawn it's campaigns to discourage smoking, not wearing seat belts and getting a tan, as they don't want to tell people what to do....


Update: More of the context of Abbott's comments are available in this abc article.
Talking about his daughters he said
"Because in the end these are all very personal things. But if someone asked my advice, I would say, don't do anything that you will live to regret if you can possibly help it, and try to act in ways in which a self-respecting person would act."


Once again, this shows the pathetic dishonesty of Julia Gillard and many commentators.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Wednesday, January 27, 2010 0 comments
22.1.10
 
Women Demand Equal Jail Time
Following on from France's legislating that females must comprise 40% of the boards of public companies, women's groups are demanding women must also make up at least 40% of the prison population.

Like the boardrooms of France's public companies, prison's only have 10% female representation, and women's groups are demanding gender equity is prison.

"Women will only be equal once this terrible inequity is resolved." one spokeswoman commented.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, January 22, 2010 0 comments
11.1.10
 
PZ Myers shows why evolution is unfalsifiable
PZ Myers, on the Panda's Thumb, has a great post up which highlights just how plastic the claims of common descent evolution are.

The change has to do with finding evidence of a tetrapod 18 million years further back than currently accepted. The evidence also shows more advanced features than Tiktaalik, which was a fossil that seemed to give great joy to evolutionists like PZ.

The first diagram (which appeared in Nature) is useful.


PZ, tells us "Notice what you don't see? They didn't publish this as a direct, linear relationship that could be disrupted by a minor anachronism."


Yep. The diagram cannot be disrupted. No direct relationships are given. We can't actually tell any relationship from the diagram. 'Unexpected' findings will merely cause the modification of relationships, never the questioning that common descent evolution is true.


Notice too, that PZ tries to pass of the new finding as a 'minor anachronism'.


Lets quickly review what the scientists and science journalists say about it






Creation Safaris has a good round up here





  • “These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals” said co-discoverer Per Ahlberg in Science Daily.
  • The finding “could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.” – Ted Daeschler in National Geographic News.
  • “The team says the find means that land vertebrates appeared millions of years earlier than previously supposed.... the Zachelmie Quarry tetrapods break the neat and simple timeline.” (BBC News).
  • “The fish–tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented.... Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al lob a grenade into that picture.” – Janvier and Clement, commenting on the find in Nature.2
  • “It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak.” – Jenny Clack (Harvard), in PhysOrg.
  • “We didn’t know they existed at this point, and we would not have expected to have found them in this environment.” – Per Ahlberg, co-discoverer, in Live Science.



It seems other people think it a little more than minor..




The next couple of diagrams neatly show how evolution simply adapts any time an 'unexpected' finding happens...






Notice how the diagram is simply extended and modified to adjust to the new findings. ANY new finding can thus be adapted, BECAUSE a direct relationship is never given.


Creating a morphological tree is not evidence for evolution, as a tree can be created for pretty much any dataset.


But don't tell PZ that, because his faith in evolution is blind and un-shakeable.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Monday, January 11, 2010 0 comments

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com