Memo To Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne & PZ Myers - Recess Is OVER

8/24/2016
MemoToRichardDawkins,BillNye,JerryCoyne&PZMyers:RecessisOVER
THEBOOK
THEPRIZE
Memo To Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne & PZ
THEVIDEO
Myers: Recess is OVER
PZMYERSDEBATE
27 Comments
THEBLOG
Share 14K
Tweet
Email
ABOUT/CONTACT
If you LOGIN
were studying computers today
Would you start with the 1984 Apple II Plus Troubleshooting

and Repair Manual?
Then why would you learn evolution by reading Richard
Dawkins and Bill Nye?
Dawkins books on evolution like those of his pals Bill Nye, Jerry
Coyne and others are every bit as outdated as this computer book.
You may be tempted to doubt me. But dont take my word for it.
In a minute Im going to show you how to prove this to yourself.
Old-school Neo-Darwinism has been replaced by a new, Post
Modern Synthesis. Practicing biologists know this. Only now is the
public beginning to hear the truth.
Most folks in 2016 wont be quite sure what Im talking about. But
everyone will know by 2020.
Message to the current kingpins of popular evolution: The 1980s version of evolution you evangelize in
your books is dead. Its time to start teaching modern science.
Lets start with Bill Nye the Science Guy.
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/recessisover/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Recess+NCSE
1/17
8/24/2016
FICTION
FACT
The remarkable thing about the evolutionary

Dr. Lynn Margulis (former wife of Carl Sagan)
process that produces new species is that its
exposes the truth in her book Acquiring Genomes:
brought on by small, random changes in genes.
Many ways to induce mutations are known but
(Bill Nye, Undeniable)
none lead to new organisms. Mutation
accumulation does not lead to new species or even
to new organs or new tissues . . . Even professional
evolutionary biologists are hard put to nd
mutations, experimentally induced or
spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to
evolutionary change (Lynn Margulis, Acquiring
Genomes)
Margulis showed symbiotic mergers not
accidental mutations were a major source of new
species. This wasnt theory or conjecture.
Symbiogenesis is observable experimental fact.
FICTION
FICTION
The main defense a bacterium has against a
phage attack is to somehow modify or

recon gure the protein pattern on its outer
membrane. Now, individuals cannot change
themselves, as such. Instead, their descendants,
their ospring, can have modi cations as their
DNA is replicated. Random changes may or may
not help them resist a phage. (Bill Nye,
Undeniable)
FACT
No biologist who knows the current literature

would agree with Bill Nye. A bacterium under
stress does literally change itself. It re-arranges its
own DNA in real time and seeks DNA from other
organisms (horizontal gene transfer). By changing
its own genome, a bacterium can generate
resistance in as little as 30 minutes.
Mutations are the random changes in genes
that constitute the raw material for evolution by

non-random selection. (Richard Dawkins,
Greatest Show on Earth)
FACT
Cells militantly guard against random changes in

genes! Their rst line of defense is the SOS
response. In SOS mode, cells rush to repair
damage from radiation and copying errors.
So where does the raw material for evolution
come from, if not from random mutations?
Answer: Genes switch on & switch o (epigenetics);
rearrange and exchange (transposition and
hybridization). Hybrids double (genome
duplication); viruses hijack; cells merge
(symbiogenesis); and winners emerge (natural
selection). Natural selection has no creative juice;
its only the nal eliminating step.
FICTION
FACT
These mutations occur willy-nilly, regardless of Barbara McClintock induced mutations in her corn
whether they are good or bad for the individual. plants. Yes, those mutations were willy-nilly from
2/17
8/24/2016
whether they are good or
bad for the individual. plants. Yes, those mutations were willy-nilly from
But it is the ltering of that variation by natural
radiation. But the plants surprised Barabara by
selection that produces adaptations, and
repairing their DNA. They moved missing code
natural selection is manifestly not random. It is from elsewhere and built new code. The
a powerful molding force, accumulating genes
adaptations were anything but willy-nilly.
that have a greater chance of being passed on
Her colleagues thought she was crazy. But she
than others (Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is
won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for discovering DNA
True)
transposition. (James Shapiro, Evolution: A View from
the 21st Century)
FICTION
FICTION
Living things in nature cannot alter their genes.

All organisms sea anemones, reies, giant
squid, miniature poodles, and humans have to
play the genetic hand theyre dealt. (Bill Nye,
Undeniable)
Everything existing in the universe is the fruit

of chance and necessity -PZ Myers, from his
Pharyngula blog
FACT
Cells cut, splice, and re-arrange their own DNA.

Horizontal Gene Transfer (cells exchanging DNA) is
so universal, there are no hard limits to where
genetic material can come from. Cells re-purpose
new genetic material from viruses, bacteria,
parasites, and other animals in hours. (Shapiro,
Evolution: A View from the 21st Century)
FACT
The stimulus associated with placement of the

insect egg into the leaf will initiate reprogramming
of the plants genome, forcing it to make a unique
structure adapted to the needs of the developing
insect. -Barbara McClintock, from her Nobel
lecture
None of their books even pass a basic FACT

CHECK from a rst-year grad student!
The evolution story fed to the public by Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Bill Nye and PZ Myers pretends
the last 30 years of molecular biology never happened.
By the way, most of this is not new. Practicing biologists have been using these tools for decades.
In most topics, errors this large would force a recall
by book publishers. Evolutionary biology seems to
have lower standards than other elds.
Books like Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker and Sel sh
Gene and Greatest Show on Earth; Nyes Undeniable
and Coynes Why Evolution is True sport a somewhat
ctitious and wildly out-of-date version of evolution.
They completely omit the cells repair machinery and
ability to re-engineer itself. Their explanations are
less than 50% accurate (for facts they do present)
and leave out the really interesting, useful stu.
Sort of like a computer book that never mentions the
mouse, video or the internet.
Check for yourself. Search Google Books for hybridization and transposition and
symbiogenesis
3/17
8/24/2016
Check for yourself. Search Google Books for hybridization and transposition and symbiogenesis
and horizontal gene transfer in Dawkins and Nyes and Coynes books.
Experimental biologists who make antibiotics and develop gene therapies harness these systems all the
time. They dont simply rely on random mutation and natural selection. They harness the cells built-in
systems as much as possible.
The red-hot new CRISPR gene-editing technology is actually humans co-opting the bacterial immune
system. The reason we are able to edit genes with such precision now is because were hitching a ride
with the tools of the Post-Modern Synthesis.
The geocentric view of the universe was once embraced by everyone.
Today its an embarrassment.
IBM once reigned as the supreme computer supplier.
How many of your friends today own an IBM?
The taxi industry once dominated in every major city.
Now Uber and Lyft are ripping them to shreds.
Yahoo! was once king of online advertising.
Verizon bought them out for for 1% of the current value of Google.
Memo to Dawkins, Nye, Coyne and Myers:

Youve missed the biggest story in science. You guys are running on fumes.
Recess is over. If you persist in your 1980s version of evolution if you do not update your books, your
websites and doctrines you too will be obsolete. And a younger generation of scientists will be all too
happy to take your place.
Knowing that we have decades of live, real-time evolutionary experiments that produce new
species in the lab and in the wild
Why arent these guys telling you the whole story???
What do you think? Post your comments below.

Share 14K
Tweet
Email
27 Responses
D. Andrew White says:
August 15, 2016 at 9:29 am
There are inuences of teleonomy (autopoiesis) that bias mutation and
selection to some degree. (Evolvability traits.) These traits are still physical,
and can be modelled with systems theory. Evan Thompson and Eva
Jablonka, for example, discuss these. But, it is a bit of a straw man to say
Dawkins is unaware of these developments.
Reply
4/17
8/24/2016
Perry Marshall says:

August 15, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Even as of 3 months ago he says epigenetics is enjoying 15 minutes of
undeserved fame.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36358104
For him to be publishing his opinions about how evolution works in 2016
is questionable and thats being generous.
Reply
Eduardo says:
August 16, 2016 at 10:17 am
You distorted what Dr. Richard Dawkins meant about epigenetics. Citing
the whole quote about the issue, we have:
Obviously weve long known that some genes are turned on, and other
genes are not turned on, in dierent tissues. The trendy thing is the
allegation that a few of these turnings on or o get passed onto the next
generation.
Thats the bit that gets all the hype and doesnt deserve to.
That heritable switching, he remarks, aects only a few genes and
fades after a few generations. Its not of evolutionary signi cance; it
doesnt go on in the way that mutation does which is forever, unless it
gets selected out.
So, clearly, he didnt dismiss epigenetics, but the idea that the switches
are passed through hundreds of generations in the same way that DNA
does.
Reply

August 16, 2016 at 10:38 am
Dawkins is wrong about that. The switching does eventually get hard
coded into the genome. This is probably where animals get instinct.
There is a ton of research going on in this area. Epigenetics as a eld is
growing 20-30% a year. Its HOT and its a major component of
evolution. Not minor. Read Shapiros Evolution: A View from the 21st
Century.
5/17
8/24/2016
Reply
Greg says:
August 22, 2016 at 4:17 am
Do you have any YouTube videos where you talk about this stu? I
think a lot of what youve said is bunk, but Im very interested in Post
Neo-Darwinism.
Reply
Greg says:
August 22, 2016 at 4:18 am
BTW, Email me when you get this. GreenSlugg.com is my website,
and my Email address is GreenSlugg@gmail.com
Reply

August 22, 2016 at 3:19 pm
https://www.youtube.com/user/CosmicFingerprints is my YT
channel.
Reply
Said says:
August 23, 2016 at 11:03 pm
But, tell me this: do you call it autopoiesis as a metaphore or is an applied
term for this study? Thanks!
Reply
6/17
8/24/2016
Thomas E Ruddick says:

August 19, 2016 at 10:25 am
As I am primarily concerned with humanities rather than hard science, I
note that your writing style seems strongly inuenced by such sources as
National Enquirer. Did the publisher force you to use that blurb Evolution
2.0 tells the biggest untold story in the history of science the story neither
side wants you to hear? I know that writing standards change but
hyperbole and straw men arent in fashion on my side of the academic
street.
Reply

August 19, 2016 at 6:55 pm
I said it because its the truth. Dawkins doesnt want you to understand
epigenetics, or symbiogenesis. Jerry Coyne hated Lynn Margulis. Look it
up and see for yourself.
And Ken Ham is not interested in showing you any empirical mechanism
that shows how you get a new species.
Reply
Douglas Kruse says:

August 20, 2016 at 12:50 am
I think the author of this post is rude.
Is he right? Maybe. But I dont like his style.
Reply
Ben Fugate says:

August 20, 2016 at 6:19 pm
Its always youre building a straw man or youre rude. How is it that every
network reporting the evening news is never accused of getting their
opinions from the same source, but any agreement against a militant
atheistic agenda and we have ourselves a crazy right wing conspiracy
7/17
8/24/2016
Reply
Richard DiMartino says:

August 21, 2016 at 10:40 am
Is the point of this article to demonstrate evidence for some sort of cosmic
higher power that helps in the design of new genotypes/phenotypes?
Reply

August 22, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Read the other links and articles and decide.
Reply
Arjen ten Have says:

August 21, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Bill Nye is NOT an evolutionary biologist, rather he popularizes science and
in general in a rather accurate way. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist
that, rather than focusing on details such as epigenetics, draws a very
correct picture of evolution. The examples indicated here may be right, I
can put 100 examples of strange things that happen in evolution. the point
is that general public can very well learn from Nye and Dawkins, rather
than getting lost is a number of seemingly random examples.
Reply

August 22, 2016 at 3:17 pm
Their general descriptions of evolution are at least 60% wrong. Its not
random, and natural selection alone isnt anywhere near enough to
generate evolutionary events. They leave out all the interesting parts. In
fact I suspect based on your comment that you yourself may not be up to
speed on what is really going on in biology and genetics today.
8/17
8/24/2016
Reply

August 22, 2016 at 5:23 pm
1 based on what if I may ask you suspect I am not up to speed?
Somebody who disagrees with you is not up to speed or do you have
some knowledge on me that actually supports you suspicion?
2 60% of their general descriptions is wrong? That is ridiculous and lacks
any metric to support. Do you know the basics of science and
discussion?
3 Looking at what you write I wonder if you are up to speed. Epigenetics
is the current prodigal son in science but the fact is that there is hardly
any real evidence for a signi cant role for epigenetics in evolution. It
seems you missed the whole debate on this book on epigenetics by
Mukherjee. He claimed an important role for epigenetics and, despite his
good name earned with earlier writings, got completely slaugthered.
Why would Dawkins want you to understand epigenetics if it is a mere
minor force.
4 What you put as FACTS, are issues that are either not in contradiction
with what you name under ction, or are marginal examples. Do you
really think that the fact that certain microorganisms can speed up their
mutation rate is A) A signi cant force in evolution B) Not known by Nye?
There are issues in evolution and they are discussed in scienti c
literature, I suggest you do the same. Dawkins and Nye are in line with
scienti c consensus. Hence, according to your idea 60% of evolutionary
biology papers is incorrect. There is work to do for you!
Reply

August 23, 2016 at 4:43 pm
1. I am very much up to speed. Read my book Evolution 2.0 and note
the 300+ academic references in the back; and endorsements from, for
example, Kwong Jeon, who is editor of International Review of Cell and
Molecular Biology. Most people who will come here and object are
people who learned evolution from Dawkins in the rst place and
received a very slanted, inaccurate version. James Shapiro who
discovered in 1968 that bacteria can re-arrange their DNA said in a
2010 lecture at Fermilab, Dawkins lives in a fantasy land.
2. Dawkins et. al. say that evolution is driven by random mutations.
That is absolutely false and there is no actual evidence
this is true. They
9/17
8/24/2016
That is absolutely false and there is no actual evidence this is true. They
say the rest is natural selection, population genetics and gene ow; and
while thats true in a very limited sense they tell you next to nothing
about symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, transposition,
epigenetics, genome doubling through hybridization, or endogenous
retroviruses. Most large evolutionary changes are one of those six
things. So if they tell you three things that are true, one thing that is
false, and leave out six things that are vital, 60% wrong is roughly the
score.
3. Read Nessa Careys book and James Shapiros book and then lets talk
about epigenetics.
4. Read Shapiros Evolution: A View from the 21st Century and youll
nd out that (A) the ability to speed mutations rates is ESSENTIAL to
evolution and (B) I dont care if Nye knows this or not, he didnt tell you.
Thus Nyes book does not even pass a basic rst year grad student fact
check. And that is a fact. 30 years out of date.
Reply

August 23, 2016 at 8:44 pm
1 300+ citations is not a lot for a book, in addition I have no means of
verifying they are any good, except that the names you refer to do not
sound too promising. I could not nd a single paper in pubmed by
your name. Anybody can write a book. And an endorsement by an
editor of a book series without o cial impact factor is also not
helpful. All you write is that
others are wrong and that you are right, but not a single detail
showing you actually understand evolution.
2 Dawkins is certainly not the frontman of a movement claiming that
mutations are the ONLY source of evolution. You will nd mentions of
many if not all the other mechanisms throughout his books. He is no
interested in these aspects of evolution since his aim is not to study
the molecular mechanisms underlying evolution but rather how
mutations (to your knowledge recombination et cetera are all forms
or of mutation) aect evolution. So if they tell you three things that
are true, one thing that is false, and leave out six things that are vital,
60% wrong is roughly the score. Point mutations are by far the major
force of evolution as demonstrated by recent sequencing projects in
Drosophila, E coli, yeast, human and likely other organisms. Hence,
there is no mistake made, except by you. Then, I can list 20 maybe 100
other mechanisms that result in evolution. Would that make you 99%
wrong? That is a ridiculous metric. Point mutations are the most
important AND for other mutations it basically works
in the same way.
10/17
8/24/2016
important AND for other mutations it basically works in the same way.
Except for epigenetics that are not hardcoded and are therefore,
despite the hype NOT a major source for long term evolution
3 Shapiro is not exactly a good example of a trusted scientist. His work
is heavily crititized by many scientists.
4 What is your problem with Bill Nye, as said and as even agreed upon
by Bill Nye, he is NOT a scientist, rather a science promoter, and far
from a biologist. The dierence between Bill Nye and you is that Bill
accepts when he is wrong, as he recently did in the GMO debate,
when he correctly changed sides based on evidence.
Reply

August 23, 2016 at 10:36 pm
If you want to research the facts at hand you will have to do better
than deliver ad hominem attacks. You do not appear to have read
any of the literature I have cited.
And point mutations are the least important, not the most
important. If you disagree, then please demonstrate that point
mutations have ever been the source of any major evolutionary
event. I will expect you to bring robust proof to the table.
Reply
Juan says:
August 21, 2016 at 11:02 pm
I agree, the article is hiperbolic. Not I ne way to write in science.
The Sel sh Gene have problems, and some ideas for discussing, But was a
book for explaining evolution in the social sciences, and for that it had a
good eect. I agree with others who claim that Dawkins is not
misunderstanding the importance of epigenetics.
Reply
Hussein says:
August 22, 2016 at 7:20 am
11/17
8/24/2016
August 22, 2016 at 7:20 am

Evolution is not a theory any more. It is a fact, as fact as the earth is round,
as fact as the planets orbits the sun in our solar system. The molecular
Biology has con rmed that from the primitive single cell bacteria to the
modern multi cell organism, there is a big resemblance Genetically. DNA
test is a part of molecular Biology. In modern time, we believe a DNA
evidence is more reliable than eye witness or CCTV to investigate a crime.
Reply

August 22, 2016 at 3:15 pm
Did you read the article?
Reply
MaGaO says:
August 22, 2016 at 6:37 pm
There is the fact of evolution: the inescapable fact that strata is dierent
enough ages will have dierent fossils.
Then there is the theory of evolution (namely, that new characteristics
appear in a population an the individuals with some advantage tend to
propagate their characteristics). In fact, there are several theories of
evolution but the one derived from Darwin is the only one standing (groso
modo)
Reply
Pat Mc Ginley says:

August 22, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Theres a de nite sense that your attacks on Dawkins, etc. are in support of
creationism and the Bible story rather than in any perceived inaccuracies
in their conclusions. Such hostility and sensationalism smacks of
desperation rather than conviction. If so, how do you reconcile the Bible
story based on a 6,000 year-old Earth with the fact that most Europeans
and Asians have between 0-4% Neanderthal DNA i.e. more evidence for
evolution?
12/17
8/24/2016
Reply

August 23, 2016 at 10:31 am
Pat,
That is a common perception. There is nothing I have actually said that
would support such a conclusion. There are many more options than just
Neo-Darwinism and YEC. If you want to get an idea of my views speci c to
the spiritual aspect, see http://www.cosmic ngerprints.com/genesis1 or
http://cosmic ngerprints.com/bible-science-reconciled/
Reply
bruce h. says:
August 23, 2016 at 7:33 pm
I am not a scientist or even a student of science but i do have a question i
would like someone to answer.from what i have read the act of evolution
has taken millons of years to accomplish. I read the other day in an article
that the sun is shrinking at a rate of 2.5 ft. per hr on the radius. If this is true
life on earth could not have existed even 100,000 yrs ago. 20 million yrs ago
the surface of the sun would be touching the surface of the earth (if that
were possible without destroying te earth) if my math is correct how then
can these vast amounts of time for evolution to work be correct
Reply
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *
Comment
Name *
13/17
8/24/2016
Email *
Website
Post Comment
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Bacteria evolve over a weekend
Book Review: Cosmosapiens by John Hands
Search
Featured
Not only has Dawkins ruined science. Hes ruined atheism too.
A New Theory of Evolution
7 Biology Myths No Electrical Engineer Would Ever Tolerate
Gdels Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century
Evolution Fist Fight at the Wistar Institute
PZ Myers Perry Marshall Debate Evolution on Podcast
Why I am Not a Young Earth Creationist
14/17
8/24/2016
Cheating The Salem Hypothesis
Einsteins Big Blunder
Recent Comments
Bacteria evolve over a weekend
Robert Lockett { Carol, I fully agree that faith can be and SHOULD be based in logic. Mine
certainly is. I just appreciated ... } Aug 23, 11:35 PM
Carol Sperling { Faith/trust/con dence can be founded upon evidence, logic, and reason. Or it
can be totally unfounded. As an engineer, I have ... } Aug 23, 6:19 PM
Dennis Mitton { Thanks to you! } Aug 23, 1:42 PM
Memo To Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne & PZ Myers: Recess is OVER
Said { But, tell me this: do you call it autopoiesis as a metaphore or is an applied term for this
study? ... } Aug 23, 11:03 PM
Arjen ten Have { 1 300+ citations is not a lot for a book, in addition I have no means of verifying
they are ... } Aug 23, 8:44 PM
bruce h. { I am not a scientist or even a student of science but i do have a question i would like
... } Aug 23, 7:33 PM
7 Biology Myths No Electrical Engineer Would Ever Tolerate
Zaya Kolpa { "I know that the information in DNA is a signal. By de nition, random mutations
are noise. Telling a communications engineer ... } Aug 23, 7:29 PM
little hugger { I see you ignore the fact it is a DESIGNED program. Exactly as Perry states. It
proves Perry is right, ... } Aug 20, 12:11 PM
Dennis Mitton { Hugger - of course Dawkins limits the possibilities. Natural selection limits the
possibilities. Have you been reading Ken Ham again? } Aug 20, 11:16 AM
Book Review: Cosmosapiens by John Hands
John Hands { Thank you so much for your extremely thoughtful review of COSMOSAPIENS on
Amazon. In it you mention that you were ... } Aug 23, 5:21 AM
Young Earth Creationists killing Christian credibility?
Ryan Ferguson { When I was 18, I reluctantly became an atheist after 6 years of wrestling with
the narrative that you either ... } Aug 22, 9:52 PM
Why I am Not a Young Earth Creationist
Tom Godfrey { Perry, Thank you for thoughtfully considering my questions too. My question
about what you would do if mainstream scientists ever ... } Aug 21, 9:58 PM
15/17
8/24/2016
Tom Godfrey { Perry, We may well guess that Adam never rode a bicycle, even after he was
created, but the fact that ... } Aug 20, 1:57 PM
Mike { I'm curious, where does the exact phrase "the beginning of all of creation" come from?
By a phrase search, it's ... } Aug 19, 8:49 AM
Gdel's Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century
Ralph { I'm reading the article again. And now I know why Derek took a wrong turn in his logic.
It is ... } Aug 21, 3:07 PM
Where life came from, according to Richard Dawkins
john yafmen { What an absurd thing to have a tirade over! It's an innocent comment. He knows
no more about the origin ... } Aug 21, 10:14 AM
Not only has Dawkins ruined science. Hes ruined atheism too.
Iain Leonard { Ah, ok, thanks.....Inte restingly laid out and important question, I can see why the
discussion here has been a bit spicy ... } Aug 17, 1:07 AM
Marilyn { Thinking . Yes that's the point. Nobody knows because the thinking mind can go no
further than belief! Even with ... } Aug 16, 9:42 AM
Iain Leonard { Hi there, got dragged in here from a sponsored link, then made the mistake of
having a smoke, now I've ... } Aug 16, 7:02 AM
Is Evolution Biblical?
Kay { Amen to that. } Aug 16, 8:09 PM
Can Anybody Actually Win The Evolution 2.0 Prize?
Martin M { This man is saying the exact same thing Steven C. Meyer says in the Book {Signature
in the Cell}. the ... } Aug 16, 4:45 PM
"Kids don't like being lied to."
Bob Stenson { This ad ignoraniam question is actually a claim that the Almighty God could not
possibly have gotten distant starlight to ... } Aug 16, 3:53 PM
"If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists"
Sam Martin { All of which proves that there are parallels between genetics and information
theory. I dont deny that. But you let ... } Aug 15, 11:15 PM
Sam Martin { Thats contingent on the assumption that DNA is a communication system. But all
youve really proven to that end is ... } Aug 15, 10:16 PM
Sam Martin { That's not how logic works. You don't make an assumption and wait for it to be
proven false. DNA was ... } Aug 15, 6:08 PM
PZ Myers - Perry Marshall Debate Evolution on Podcast
Pete Holzmann { Hi Perry, I don't know if we've met. Obviously you know my last name...and
may have heard of me. A ... } Aug 14, 7:56 AM
16/17
8/24/2016
2005 2016 CosmicFingerprints.com

Site Directory
About
Online Privacy
17/17

Memo To Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne & PZ Myers - Recess Is OVER

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Memo To Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne & PZ Myers - Recess Is OVER

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

8/24/2016

Would you start with the 1984 Apple II Plus Troubleshooting

The remarkable thing about the evolutionary

The main defense a bacterium has against a

phage attack is to somehow modify or

No biologist who knows the current literature

Mutations are the random changes in genes

that constitute the raw material for evolution by

Cells militantly guard against random changes in

Living things in nature cannot alter their genes.

Everything existing in the universe is the fruit

Cells cut, splice, and re-arrange their own DNA.

The stimulus associated with placement of the

None of their books even pass a basic FACT

Memo to Dawkins, Nye, Coyne and Myers:

What do you think? Post your comments below.

Perry Marshall says:

Perry Marshall says:

Perry Marshall says:

Thomas E Ruddick says:

Perry Marshall says:

Douglas Kruse says:

Ben Fugate says:

Richard DiMartino says:

Perry Marshall says:

Arjen ten Have says:

Perry Marshall says:

Arjen ten Have says:

Perry Marshall says:

this is true. They

Arjen ten Have says:

in the same way.

Perry Marshall says:

August 22, 2016 at 7:20 am

Perry Marshall says:

Pat Mc Ginley says:

Perry Marshall says:

Bacteria evolve over a weekend

Book Review: Cosmosapiens by John Hands

A New Theory of Evolution

7 Biology Myths No Electrical Engineer Would Ever Tolerate

Gdels Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century

Evolution Fist Fight at the Wistar Institute

PZ Myers Perry Marshall Debate Evolution on Podcast

Why I am Not a Young Earth Creationist

Cheating The Salem Hypothesis

Einsteins Big Blunder

2005 2016 CosmicFingerprints.com

S-ar putea să vă placă și