Fairy tale for grown-ups.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grow-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research in at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate.

So one guy (who was a biologist, not necessarily an evolutionalry scientist) decides he doesn't like the theory, that doesn't debunk it. Bishops have gone on record saying that they don't beleive in God - does that lend credence to God not existing or does it simply show that people sometimes chose to argue against their own 'teams'?

Could you answer these points? The first supports evolution, the second casts doubt on creationism - or do you have another take on them?


1) certain physical traits are of advantage to creature from different families but similar lifestyles. For example, the super optic lobe (SOL) is the bulge of bone above your eye where your eyebrow is - it's found in a lot of animals who's eyes face forwards to allow depth perception, such as eagles, humans, chimps, crocs and lions, because loss of 1 eye is a major disadvantage to survival.
Here's the bit that supports Theory of Evolution (ToE). Long before we could identify the individual gene groups responsible for certain physical traits ToE had mapped out where species were though to have diverged. It stands to reason that if species B & C diverged from A, and A already had a SOL, then the gene group responsible for the SOL in A would remain the same in both B & C. Likewise, if species D did not have a SOL but species E & F both do then the SOL must have evolved after the division of species and therefore the gene group must be different. Although ToE predicted where species diverged and what from decades before gene technology this has now been shown to be true countless times - where ToE predicted that B & C evolved from A, and A already possessed a certain trait, that the genes responsible for this trait are still the same in B & C, and visa versa with E & F having different gene groups from each other because D didn't have those genes to give. Going back to the previous example, Lions and crocs were predicted to have diverged long before they had SOLs, and their gene groups for SOL have been shown to be different, whereas chimps and humans have the same gene group for SOL which fits the prediction that we come from a common ancestor who already has SOLs. How is this prediction by using ToE possible if not because ToE is correct?

2) Genetic diversity - we see it all around us and there's way too many gene varients to have come from 2 people (who could hold a maximum only 2 varients for each group each). So, without accepting that new gene groups have been created since Adam & Eve, or since Noah & family if you wish, where have all the extra gene groups come from?

Suppose we could agree on the fact that a Unicorn is in fact a Rhinoceros, would that help to bring Creationists and Evolutionists together ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe


Suppose we could agree on the fact that a Unicorn is in fact a Rhinoceros, would that help to bring Creationists and Evolutionists together ?

I would say narwhal, not rhino. Otherwise I'm sure you could find people who would agree to that.

... --- ...

Originally posted by ivanhoe


Suppose we could agree on the fact that a Unicorn is in fact a Rhinoceros, would that help to bring Creationists and Evolutionists together ?

Creationists accepting this might help though

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

excerpts ....
Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was lost entirely from the population."

"Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years. "

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grow-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

[b]Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research in at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate. [/b]

Just as I thought - you are ripping these quotes out of "The Other Quote Book". Also known in scientific circles as "A pack of Creationist Lies Formed by Taking Scientists Out of Context."

Prof Bournoure DID NOT say what you claimed he said.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

Why don't you reference your lies dj2becker? Or are you too embarrassed to show that you don't have an original thought.