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
