Seriously when a commenter asked:
I’m still new here, but I can’t help but ask…do people actually read the articles before declaring they falsify evolution?
The shorter version was “No!” but the long version, given by Atom, was:
I don’t think you fully get it. Those of us at UD (for the most part) have been following the NDEvo/creo and now NDEvo/ID debates for a long time. We are well versed in NDE and have long been making predictions of these sorts of things. Dembski and others have been doing the theoretical work which was dismissed by NDE proponents.
So when we see stories such as this, they are just more emprical findings confirming predictions of ID. We see these sorts of stories all the time. Some of them, when contested, are read thoroughly and discussed in detail. Others are just “Ok, so Darwinism is surprised again, what else is new?”
Neo-Darwinism is already falsified (in myriad ways…stick around and pay attention); new findings are fun, because they show just how “onto something” ID really is.
Translation “We’re so smart we don’t need to read no stinkin’ science papers”. Which is why Pav can make the mistake of thinking that the recent article in PLOS on shark fins actually supports frontloading. Perhaps if they quit making stuff up about evolutionary theory and actually read something on the subject they might be a little better off.
(Hat tip to the Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread)