Darwin destroyed in new book

[alang1216]

No, that's what it shows. Which is why you wrote...

Which data? I claimed small incremental changes will, over time, lead to speciation which is not in conflict with the fossil record. Natural selection is only one method of speciation.

 

[ding]

Which data? I claimed small incremental changes will, over time, lead to speciation which is not in conflict with the fossil record. Natural selection is only one method of speciation.

You were literally arguing why the fossil record didn't match what it was supposed to match.

 

[alang1216]

Right, not all mutations take or result in new species. Just the ones that occur in sufficient numbers and provide a functional advantage. Nature is like a single organism. Everything is connected.

Sounds like we agree. How did that happen??

When a need exists, nature fills the void on her own.

I'd restate this to say "When an opportunity arises, nature takes advantage of it".

 

[alang1216]

You were literally arguing why the fossil record didn't match what it was supposed to match.

I was only saying the does match the data.

 

[ding]

Sounds like we agree. How did that happen??


I'd restate this to say "When an opportunity arises, nature takes advantage of it".

I can only assume it happened because of my unwavering dedication to the truth.

Feel free to look at it that way. The reality is nature abhors a vacuum so filling a void is a much more accurate description.

 

[ding]

I was only saying the does match the data.

Long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes does not agree with the belief in slight successive changes leading to new species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And if it occurred in enough numbers across a herd and offered a functional advantage?

You tell us...?

But keep in mind, it didn't even have to confer some sort of obvious functional advantage. It may have come to dominate in a small population because of other advantages enjoyed by the parental or maternal line. Like size, speed, etc.

 

[ding]

You tell us...?

But keep in mind, it didn't even have to confer some sort of obvious functional advantage. It may have come to dominate in a small population because of other advantages enjoyed by the parental or maternal line. Like size, speed, etc.

That wouldn't accomplish my objective. I already know the answer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That wouldn't accomplish my objective. I already know the answer.

Good for you, I guess.

 

[alang1216]

Feel free to look at it that way. The reality is nature abhors a vacuum so filling a void is a much more accurate description.

'Abhor' implies some valuation on the part of nature. There is none, only cold, hard probabilities.

 

[Hollie]

You claim the "comparison" is "false" because it exposes the nonsense you prattled by analogy. Gravity is an inanimate force, and yet you Darwinists ALWAYS compare evolution as "factual" as gravity.
So when you say something, it's always gospel science.
When anyone refutes you, you make up silly stories and call them stupid.

I sent critiques of Richard Dawkins' books to his publisher and the best he could do is the same thing as you, call me names. The same was true of Isaac Asimov, a vile, hateful, bitter atheist.

I sold his postcard for $75 on E-Bay and Carl Sagan's letter for $125.
Sagan was more polite than Dawkins or Asimov and merely asked me to buy his latest book. I never bought any of them but checked them out at the library.

A fellow I met on another message board just finished my book and loved it. A medical doctor called it "beyond incredible". "Required reading for every literate human."

Your claim to intellectual fame is what? Please tell this cyberaudience. I'm sure they would love to know.

P.S. I just made an offer on Twitter to give $20,000 to each of the first four residents of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Minnesota, and Arizona to provide information leading to the arrest and conviction of Democrats illegally stuffing ballot boxes in the 2020 presidential race. What have you done for your country this year? Or last? The cyberaudience would love to know that as well.

You have been spamming multiple threads with your Sagan story. Give it a rest.

 

[scruffy]

^^^ This latest tirade is the last, desperate resort of the religious extremist. Attack Darwin's character because they can't refute the theory.

It's funny to watch the hyper-religious bang away at their keyboards while they resort to these emotional outbursts.

Literally nothing has been offered to refute biological evolution.

I don't get it. I'm SHOWING them how it works, and instead of trying to understand they're deep in DeNile.

Well, y'know, I can't help. Denial is a psychiatric issue, not a biophysical issue. Psychiatry is not my field, I have no idea where the wishful thinking comes from.

These guys keep saying they haven't seen one species morph into another + well, they haven't seen gravity either - but they probably believe in it anyway.

Mystifying. The human mind is mystifying.

 

[scruffy]

Which data? I claimed small incremental changes will, over time, lead to speciation which is not in conflict with the fossil record. Natural selection is only one method of speciation.

"Speciation" the way Seymour sees it, is actually two different things. And we usually only see one of them.

There's the creation of species, which has mainly to do with mutation, and the survival of species, which has mainly to do with selection and the niche.

We only see the survival part. Everything we see, are species that succeeded, where the mutation allowed them to realize success in an available niche.

We usually don't see the mutation part, except if we're in a lab looking for it (or deliberately causing it).

 

[ding]

'Abhor' implies some valuation on the part of nature. There is none, only cold, hard probabilities.

It's a common saying. Maybe you've never heard it expressed that way.

 

[DudleySmith]

Not at all. Since all the evidence is on my side.

That's why you harmful liars are sitting in the corner with the alien abductees and the spoonbenders, getting laughed at by normal adults.

lol you don't know any 'normal adults'.

 

[DudleySmith]

We usually don't see the mutation part, except if we're in a lab looking for it (or deliberately causing it).

That's because the vast majority of mutations don't survive, and adaptation doesn't rely on mutations, which is why the modern evolution fantasies are rubbish. The probabilities of positive mutations are vanishingly small, much less a series of them, in the trillionths of a percent.

 

[Weatherman2020]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend – CEH

crev.info

View attachment 932377

And an old book. #1 bestselling for centuries.

 

[DudleySmith]

And an old book. #1 bestselling for centuries.

View attachment 942920

Genesis was written by some very wise men; they got pretty dang close to the reality without having much empiricism to work with, just logic and observation. It is far more intellectually impressive than what the 19th Century 'rationalists' have come up with.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Genesis was written by some very wise men; they got pretty dang close to the reality without having much empiricism to work with, just logic and observation. It is far more intellectually impressive than what the 19th Century 'rationalists' have come up with.

They or he got it exactly right. God told them/he.

 

[DudleySmith]

Which data? I claimed small incremental changes will, over time, lead to speciation which is not in conflict with the fossil record. Natural selection is only one method of speciation.

lol the entire fossil record alleged for humans with fit on my kitchen table, and far less than that, maybe a shoebox, when you exclude trying to shoehorn extinct species of apes into the record.