Talk:Evobabble

Many years ago, I remember to have been looking for a copy of a very old book ('60s, no less) about astrophysics and how one of the results was a Creationist web site that misused this phrase of it about galactic evolution: "Therefore a more reasonable picture is that the Hubble types make up a conservation (Emphasis in the original) classification rather than an evolutionary sequence.". Could it fit in this article? --Panzerfaust (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could find a use for it somewhere. Just make sure to include the context you gave here, about creationists quote mining an old book, etc. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The original source is on archive.org: "The elliptical galaxies do seem to be old objects but the spiral and irregular galaxies also contain a certain number of stars of considerable age. Therefore a more reasonable picture is that the Hubble types make up a conservation classification rather than an evolutionary sequence." It's obvious that the creationists cherry picked this quote and typically misrepresented the context completely. – Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * THIS. The book's quote refers to the Hubble sequence, a system to classify galaxies and of course galactic evolution has nothing to see with biological evolution. Not only that, but in the five decades since the book was published is know that galaxies evolve growing bars in some cases, slowing down their star formation as gas supplies are used up to make new stars, merging with others and being more or less re-shaped in the proccess, and even more. --Panzerfaust (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)