J
The dangers of allowing crackpots to write articles for your magazine:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/whats_the_matter_with_forbes.php
James, the man is a reknowned chemist, a worthy profession which nevertheless does not qualify him as an authority on evolution, particularly the current understanding of modern evolutionary biology and microbiology.
Also, if you read the article, you'll note that there has been an ongoing controversy between Skell and evolutionists, and that Forbes has been offering a soapbox to a collection of DI 'luminaries', hence, 'crackpots', a term I think even CF will allow me to use:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/for_shame_forbes_magazine.php
Why? You've already posted a summary of his scientific achievements, which have nothing to do with evolution. Why should his comments on evolution carry any more weight than a taxi driver's?Sorry, he is qualified to comment on evolutionary biology.
Unlike Skell, I actually study and publish on natural selection and evolution. His article has very little substance, and what there is is often wrong. His comments about studying the development of resistance, for example, display considerable ignorance about how developing resistance is studied by real biologists concerned with that phenomenon. For example, I work with a group studying malaria genetics, and in particular the development of drug resistance in malaria. We pay a great deal of attention to genetic signals that natural selection is occurring, since they can be a powerful clue about where in the genome the necessary mutations are taking place.If he isn't, then certainly you are not qualified to make any comments.
And besides, Santonio Holmes bobbled the ball. It wasn't a catch.
Yeah yeah whatever you say.
Man, you guys never seem to learn when to shut up.Sorry, he is qualified to comment on evolutionary biology. If he isn't, then certainly you are not qualified to make any comments.
Man, you guys never seem to learn when to shut up.
I'm not sure I'd put much faith in an academic who doesn't even do enough research to realize his argument has been made, addressed, and coutnered before. He doesnt' even correctly address the position of evolution, he misrepresents it entirely. I'd say his actions speak louder then his credentials.
O because I'm looking at myself haha I see what you did there.I think you were looking in the mirror when you typed this.
, to make money in an asbestos lawsuit.
.
Do you mean a suit made out of asbestos in court? A fireproof suit?