frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
Gee, are you suggesting that a President must adhere to the left's pet scientific theories and not allowed to doubt them and doing so somehow makes a person disqualified to be President? Like its a religion test of some kind the left wants to impose? Only an anti one instead? Since when was the Presidency related to science at all, much less the specific pet theories of the left about the origins of life? ROFL
Because no the theory of evolution isn't just like the theory of relativity and atomic theory. First of all the atomic theory isn't a theory any longer but considered to be proven scientific fact, upon which the entire field of subatomic study is built. The theory of relativity is actually flawed and will always be a theory because it contradicts the theory of propagation of light. Which is also still a theory too. Both cannot be true at the same time which means they didn't get one or both quite right yet and are still missing something critical.
But what makes all the above theories different from the theory of evolution is that each of them attempt to explain specific phenomena in our natural world. Which is what all legitimate theories do -try to explain specific phenomena in our natural world to account for the existence and/or function of that specific phenomena.
However the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain a specific phenomenon at all -which sets it apart from all other theories. It attempts to explain EVERYTHING with what is in reality an overly simplistic explanation. One which when attempting to apply it to very specific phenomena, actually FAILS to explain it after all. Which means when trying to put it to practical use -it actually explains nothing at all. Which makes it a pretty useless theory, huh.
Those doing the scientific work have to do so in a way it APPEARS not to directly challenge this "religion" but in fact it is under constant attack -because it is blatantly and FATALLY FLAWED. Scientists still come up with theories that attempt to explain specific phenomena because THIS theory doesn't explain jackshit that applies to ANY of them. Any honest scientist will not only admit it -but if Darwin were alive HE would admit that he got it wrong.
Just one example -Darwin theorized the vision was the result of the accumulation of benign, meaningless, totally random mutations -mutations slowly accumulated over many, many eons. Like it or not, THAT is what he theorized -that vision came about after the slow, random and absolutely meaningless accumulation of benign mutations -until the last critical part was MEANINGLESSLY mutated into exactly the right place at the right time all the other meaningless mutations were still there -and voilà -two blind parents spawned offspring that could SEE! But totally as a meaningless and totally random event mind you. Except it didn't happen that way. Visual systems showed up all at once, all necessary parts in unrelated tissues and structures -nervous tissue, brain, bone, hormones - all at the same time and not as the result of slow accumulation of mutations -and it did so simultaneously in thousands of different, unrelated species. Hard to pretend the theory of evolution really explains that one when it actually contradicts it.
What Darwin could not have known at the time is the like so many systems in higher species -is that vision is an irreducibly complex system too. The irreducibly complex systems -of which vision is only one -all showed up at once in species and NOT as the result of the slow but at all times MEANINGLESS mutations of only benign but totally useless mutations until that last critical one meaningless happened. And worse yet -the fossil record proves that visual systems like all the other biological irreducibly complex systems did not come about over many eons with the slow accumulation of benign and meaningless mutations until one day two blind parents spawned seeing offspring. Didn't happen that way at all. These systems showed up at once and did so in thousands of unrelated species during roughly the same time period. Oops Darwin.
Darwin had a POOR UNDERSTANDING of mutations and what he believed to be true about them was in fact the opposite of what is known about them TODAY. Information he did not have but could have used because that information contradicts his theory. Darwin did NOT know about DNA and therefore could NOT have know where on the DNA strand mutations even take place. Turns out the part of the DNA strand that identifies SPECIES -is extremely RESISTANT to mutation and so much so that mutations on THAT part of the DNA strand are 100% lethal to the individual -meaning it won't even LIVE long enough to be born or hatched -much less live long enough to reproduce and pass it on. Only the part that deals with how the individual will look and how its parts will function or not function can be mutated and not kill the individual. But no amount of mutations on that part of the DNA EVER changes its species. As in NEVER. Which is why it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that two parents of one species can only produce an individual of that same identical species. And sorry no matter how far back you want to go, with the theory of evolution you are still talking about at SOME point in time two parents of one species producing an individual that is a different species -which we know is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Meaning that what Darwin did not know is that no amount of mutations will EVER turn one species into another one and it doesn't matter how fact back you want to go. The only thing that changes is what the average member of that species may look like -but at all times the species is the same. For example -horses originally looked MUCH different than horses do today -but at all times the species never changed in spite of natural and manipulated traits that make them look as they do today. And never will. Darwin did not know about DNA and where mutations actually take place -there is NO role for his theory about the nature of mutations because we know today he got that wrong too. OOPS BIG TIME DARWIN.
Darwin theorized the vast majority of mutations were harmless and benign. He was WRONG. Repeated studies by different scientists around the world have repeatedly proven that there is no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation. One has NEVER been found in any species. What scientists have proven about mutations is that they don't take place on the part of the DNA that identifies the species -and when it does occur there, nature HATES mutations and kills the individual even before it is born or hatched so it will never be passed on. Meaning its much harder to turn a species into a totally new one by means of mutations than even Darwin believed -OOPS. What scientists REALLY proved is that nature HATES mutations and weeds them out by killing the individual with mutations on that part of their DNA -for the protection of the species. It means nature is working to prevent the very thing Darwin theorized was fairly common place!
Think about it -because this is a big one. Since it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that two parents of one species can only produce individuals of that same species -then Darwin's theory about one species turning into a totally different one over times contradicts that. Both cannot be true at the same time. Darwin got the mutation thing totally wrong -studies have proven that most of them are harmful, even lethal to the individual, no individual will survive if the mutation occurs on the part that identifies the species. In other words, the part of the DNA that would alter the species is NOT transmissible to offspring because the individual doesn't even survive to pass it on. NATURE tries to PROTECT a species from mutations, not use them to make a new species! Big OOPS there Darwin.
Natural selection totally failed to explain how it was possible for one species to turn into another -it could only explain how changes occur over time WITHIN a species -but at all times, with natural selection -it still remains the same species. Always. Mutations didn't pan out as a satisfactory explanation either because Darwin did not know the mathematical probabilities that the length of time needed to accumulate enough benign or beneficial mutations to change its species would take many times longer than life has existed on the planet! Oops Darwin. So the real diehards came up with the Mammoth Mutation Theory -which says instead of an exceedingly rare beneficial mutation showing up once every billion eons which can't work with the real time line here - let's pretend about once every 50,000 years a gigantic set of positive, only beneficial mutations all show up at once. Oh, as a totally random and completely meaningless event though -just out of the blue. And of course, had no explanation for how that would even be possible that entire BUNDLES of only beneficial mutations just randomly show up at once. But in addition that one doesn't pan out with the time line either. This is a theory that in effect says it IS possible for two parents of one species to lay an egg -and the individual that pops out of it is not the same species as its parents. Again defying what we all know is a scientific fact -which is why when testing the paternity of a child, testing whether its father is even human is NEVER done.
So this dumb ass theory is a hard sell, isn't it? This means if your mother is a human and your father is a human but you turned out to be a toothless, legless, armless, blind slug -you'd still be a human being anyway. One that was pitied by the rest of us but your species would still be 100% human being. Even though you don't look like the average human. And if an accident happened that killed everyone but the toothless, legless, armless blind slugs that all looked like you -it doesn't mean its a new species. It only means what the average person looks like changed. But NEVER its species. And THAT can be proven by DNA testing too. Something Darwin was totally ignorant about what science would learn in the future about DNA and mutations -but totally contradicts his theory on numerous fronts.
So pretending Darwin, ignorant about future scientific discoveries and the fact they would end up totally contradicting nearly everything he theorized was true -got it correct anyway is demanding we CHOOSE ignorance over advancements in scientific knowledge.
There are MANY other things Darwin got wrong -but another big one here. In total contradiction to his theory that moving forward through time would show an increasing diversity of life with MORE species and moving back in time would show less diversity of life with fewer species -we now know that since the Cambrian period, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Moving forward through time from the Cambrian to the present -some 500 million years - each era since has had FEWER species than the one before. Life has been getting LESS diverse over time -NOT more as Darwin theorized. (And NO, it is not man's fault either.) Another OOPS. There were very few species of life before the Cambrian, during it diversity just exploded and it has never happened since. Instead with each passing era more species become extinct and life is becoming LESS diversified over time. Totally contradicting Darwin AGAIN. In a MAJOR, MAJOR way. Both cannot be true -life doesn't get more diverse over time while getting less diverse over time. But we know for a fact which of those IS true -and sorry, it ain't Darwin.
While you mock Bachmann -I assure you that our descendants will be doing some major MOCKING of some of the people of this era alright -just not the ones you think.
See THIS is the real difference between the left and me. I don't care if the theory of evolution is true or not true. I don't give a rat's ass. The left DESPERATELY cares -to the point they are rabid about it and in total denial. They think it allows them to rule out any role for God and they fear further scientific discovery will not so easily do so as they think this theory does. But science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. So it doesn't matter to me if this theory were true or not -if true, it has no bearing on my religious beliefs because my religion isn't science and unlike the left, science is not my religion! I care about scientific TRUTH and FACT because if you don't build ONLY on those, you build worthless crap that eventually collapses and can only set back scientific discovery until the crap is tossed on the junk heap where it belongs. And sorry but the theory of evolution is so badly flawed as to be useless as to be able to explanation a damn thing about how anything in our natural world works. Which is why it isn't even used as a working theory to explain ANYTHING or ANY specific phenomena in the natural world by ANY scientist doing research in any field of research. They are ALL looking for the REAL explanations for how the natural world works.
But so is politics.
