Evolutionary theory gone wrong

"Only a theory" is meant to be dismissive, yet much of science is based on things that are only a theory. Theories are important; they are how science works. Theories are not facts C theories are explanations of the world that we observe. Theories are based on facts but are not themselves facts. As they are the basic stuff of science, calling something only a theory makes no sense as an insult.We provide payment solutions in the USA as well as ultrasonicsensor. So I am not sure what the creationists are on about: clearly they want to discount science as "tricks of the Devil" C it might be easier for them to just say that.

Trying to use "only a theory" as a dismissal of real science is a huge misinterpretation of how a scientific theory works in general, and evolutionary theory more specifically. The creationists aren't alone in this; there are many misinterpretations of evolutionary theory out there (as my fellow Occam's Corner blogger Henry Gee discussed recently). Evolutionary theory is a great scientific theory that has the best explanation, so far, of why there is such a huge diversity of species on our planet and how this diversity developed from common ancestors. It is about animals, plants and fungi adapting to their niche environments over time. What this theory is not is a moral judgment.

Evolutionary theory misused as a misplaced morality all started with the coining of the phrase "survival of the fittest" by Victorian economist and philosopher Herbert Spencer. Spencer thought that man would continually improve over time to eventually create the perfect man in the perfect society. This is a rather benevolent worldview, but next came so-called social Darwinism, coined by Darwin's own cousin, which set forth that certain races were superior to others. Francis Galton firmly believed that society would go to the dogs if we kept allowing "inferior" people to breed.

The Darwin awards are clearly meant to be funny C but in reality this has nothing to do with genetic inheritance because there is not a gene for "doing stupid things". Not to mention that "smart" people do stupid things all the time. Just look at what Niall Ferguson, who was evidently having a Pat Robertson moment,Learn how an embedded microprocessor in a iccard can authenticate your computer usage and data. said last week about how Keynes's economic theory was flawed because he was gay.

When our mindset leaves the arena of humour and actually proposes that some genes that are "better" than others, the outcomes can be dangerous. One only has to look at eugenics C the Galtonian idea that we can somehow improve the genetic fitness of the human population by selective breeding. This has led to all sorts of horrid catastrophies, from the Holocaust to the US using compulsory sterilisation into the 1970s.

These false ideas of evolution usually have no scientific basis C they are rather like some kind of crazy genetic get-out-of-jail-free card. Take the "man is hunter, woman is gatherer/homemaker" trope and the idea that this somehow has to do with genes we have inherited, rather than some kind of social evolution (sans the genes). Social evolution isn't the same as genetic evolution. While societies certainly do evolve (not necessarily for the "better", which is in the eyes of the beholder),Find the best selection of high-quality collectible solarlamp available anywhere. this is not the same thing as evolution as it pertains to the origins and diversity of species. I sincerely doubt it is "in my genes" to keep the hearth while my man goes and clubs meat over the head, and that if I don't clean my house there is something genetically wrong with me.

"Survival of the fittest"? Darwin never said that. What Darwin did describe was "fitness" to a certain environment, which might seem like a subtle difference but is rather an important one. Natural evolution is about the diversity of species, not the justification of moral theories. If we are going to turn evolution into moral philosophy, my vote would be for "live and let live", which is much more apt.

According to the Canadian Bankers Association, the way Canadians pay bills has changed dramatically as the demand for day-to-day,We printers print with traceable drycabinet to optimize supply chain management. bricks-and-mortar banking drops. Forty-six per cent of Canadians now use online banking as their primary method of bill payment, while only nine per cent pay in a branch.

But not all innovations are taken up by the public right away. When the CBA polled consumers asking if theyd use their phone for purchases in the future, 27 per cent said it was likely, while 68 per cent said it was unlikely.

One challenge is the issue of security. Online banking is now widely believed to be a secure form of banking, but mobile banking is still emerging. So many people have their doubts about it.We offer over 600 parkingassistsystem at wholesale prices of 75% off retail.

The new technology, offered through two Canadian credit unions so far, Meridian in Ontario and Westminster Savings in British Columbia, enables consumers to deposit a cheque by taking a picture of it, then uploading the image with a new app. named Deposit Anywhere. While the app. was developed for small businesses to save time, anyone with an iPhone can use it.

The way consumers pay for items in stores is also changing. The payment industry is working quickly to help customers use their phone as a digital wallet.

Theyre doing this in two ways. One uses quick response, or QR, codes. These are similar to bar codes. This technology will soon enable consumers to redeem gift cards or access discounts on their phones at the point of sale.

Were using QR codes more regularly now, so people can get instant gratification or instant motivation to buy something, says Gonsalves

Technology experts are most excited about near-field communication. Just as a credit card can be used to pay for things at the point of sale, a smart phone can be used to pay for items if the retailer uses NFC technology.