Speaking of GA's ...

Richard M Kliman rkliman at runet.edu
Tue Sep 17 17:17:31 EST 1996


In article <51cp2t$86k at nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
Joe Felsenstein <joe at evolution.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:

>In article <51b71q$r76 at phaedrus.kralizec.net.au>,
>Brett Phillips <moggy at lisp.com.au> wrote:
>>One question:  In what way was my original posting to do with Creation at 
>>all?  You totally missed my argument concerning Genetic Algorithms. Not 
>>one section of my posting has anything to do with the Creation/Evolution 
>>debate, so just cool down! Perhaps you should go back to the original 
>>posting and read again.

>Gosh, it sure fooled me!  I append your original post so people can check
>it themselves.

Sure, enough.  The problem, as you point out, is that lots of 
(presumably) sincere critics of evolution have little idea that their 
"refutations" have been considered ad infinitum.

It seems to me that this is one more piece of evidence that this group 
needs moderation.  Another admittedly unpalatable alternative is to get 
rid of bionet.molbio.evolution, and move discussions to 
sci.bio.evolution.  I'd rather see that done than to see one of the 
bionet newsgroups wrecked by persistent pseudoscientific and anti-scientific 
noise.

Rich Kliman
Dept. of Biology
Radford University



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list