Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[PoliticalChic]

The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.

PoliticalSpice is once again denying her fundamentalist religion is her inspiration for all of her mindless "cut & paste" threads?

Too bad that we already went down that path and outted PoliticalSpice's religious motivation.

You can't unring that bell.

Do you not understand that your post is both untrue and has nothing to do with the thread?

Why embarrass yourself time after time?

Some kind of self hatred?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Of course I do.

You've revealed yourself to be both ignorant, and a liar.

It's clear you've got nothing to offer.

I'm done with you

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course I do.

You've revealed yourself to be both ignorant, and a liar.

It's clear you've got nothing to offer.

I'm done with you

Run off, sonny boy.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Run off, sonny boy.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science Darwin Was Right DiscoverMagazine.com

Read and enjoy

 

[PoliticalChic]

Run off, sonny boy.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science Darwin Was Right DiscoverMagazine.com

Read and enjoy

Back for more beatings?

Are you ready to admit that you lied when you claimed that my posts were based on Intelligent Design?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Run off, sonny boy.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science Darwin Was Right DiscoverMagazine.com

Read and enjoy

Back for more beatings?

Are you ready to admit that you lied when you claimed that my posts were based on Intelligent Design?

It was an incorrect assumption, logically based on your primary sources.

If you don't believe in intelligent design, what do you believe?

Are you a creationist?

If you don't believe in either, what do you believe in?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Run off, sonny boy.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science Darwin Was Right DiscoverMagazine.com

Read and enjoy

Back for more beatings?

Are you ready to admit that you lied when you claimed that my posts were based on Intelligent Design?

It was an incorrect assumption, logically based on your primary sources.

If you don't believe in intelligent design, what do you believe?

Are you a creationist?

If you don't believe in either, what do you believe in?

Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.

I thoroughly research every subject in which I have an interest.

My premise here is very specific: Darwin was incorrect.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.

I thoroughly research every subject in which I have an interest.

My premise here is very specific: Darwin was incorrect.

Sure, Darwin got some things wrong. There were a lot of things he had no knowledge of. Like DNA and the Burgess Shales and Chengjiang.

But the general concept of evolution by the means of natural selection is every bit as valid today as it was when Darwin wrote Origin.

And you cannot prove otherwise nor offer a better theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.

I thoroughly research every subject in which I have an interest.

My premise here is very specific: Darwin was incorrect.

Sure, Darwin got some things wrong. There were a lot of things he had no knowledge of. Like DNA and the Burgess Shales and Chengjiang.

But the general concept of evolution by the means of natural selection is every bit as valid today as it was when Darwin wrote Origin.

And you cannot prove otherwise nor offer a better theory.

1. I can prove otherwise

2. Providing a 'better' theory is not my obligation.

3. Are you ready to admit that Darwin freely stated that fossil proof was necessary to prove his theory?

And that for his theory to be true, the record must show increasing complexity...



It seems you are clueless as to the significance of the Burgess deposits, of Chengjiang, etc.


4. And, in order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.?

Here....let's bury you in education: : 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.

a. The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Poor you, huh?

Bought the scam like it was on sale.

5. BTW....the Discovery article was way over the top.

In other threads I have shown the mathematical improbability of the 'molecular evidence.'

 

[Derideo_Te]

The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.

PoliticalSpice is once again denying her fundamentalist religion is her inspiration for all of her mindless "cut & paste" threads?

Too bad that we already went down that path and outted PoliticalSpice's religious motivation.

You can't unring that bell.

Do you not understand that your post is both untrue and has nothing to do with the thread?

Why embarrass yourself time after time?

Some kind of self hatred?