Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence? You have already made up your mind that these researchers are just colluding with other scientists to make a political point that deniers of science are conspiracy nuts.
But you have no evidence at all. How many of you have already run off and read the paper yet... thoroughly? And yet, here you are condemning it. Wow! Good way to prove the authors point but announcing a conspiracy when you see science you don't like (but haven't read). Their work has just been beautifully f*$king demonstrated here in the comments section of
There is no equivalence between the biblical story and the scientific evidence. Firstly, one is a story, the other is evidence. Secondly, the bible then goes on to make several incorrect statements about the order of events that happened on earth, not to mention getting the time scale very very wrong. The final nail in the coffin is the story of the Ark. There are more species alive today than could possibly be stuffed into the Ark - and we 'know' the size of the ark well from the bible. Not to mention all these carnivorous animals, once off the ark somehow didn't eat one of the two non-carnivorous animals hence making that line extinct before the waters even receded. Lastly, how on earth did the Koala, which only eats a few species of eucalyptus leaves - only found in Australia - walk the long trek from the middle east, not eating anything along the way, to Australia and promptly wait for the local trees to regrow their leaves so they didn't starve to death?
I am always amazed how people can believe such stories after mankind came to understand the actual diversity of life on earth. It is truly an embarrassment to believe these old stories.
Well, engineers that solve problems in biological systems will use 'that'. But there is an additional problem with your comment. An engineer that accepts electrons can move through a metallic conductor when a voltage is applied because the evidence says so, but refuses to believe evolution despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true, is an engineer acting on faulty principles.
No, I don't trust them.
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam