Darwin: Far From Science

[PoliticalChic]

'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution. You're welcome to ignore them since they don't support your argument but you don't know what fossils have yet to found.

I see you've reverted to a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. We don't currently have evidence so the evidence cannot exist.

"Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution."

Consistent with every other post of yours, this one is wrong as well.

'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution. You're welcome to ignore them since they don't support your argument but you don't know what fossils have yet to found.

I see you've reverted to a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. We don't currently have evidence so the evidence cannot exist.

"Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution."

Actually....not a single one does.

'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

I showed that that is not the case.

Clean off your specs, and read slowly:


1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


4. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



Once again, I achieve a victory over ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.

"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.
Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.
Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton


Yet, morons continue to march lock step with the Leftists who propagate the myth.



From the OP:
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Amazing.

 

[alang1216]

"Every fossil ever found does verify Darwinian evolution."

Actually....not a single one does.

If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution that goes back to a "God of the gap" fallacy.

If you're referring to fossils that have actually been found, I'm very curious as to which fossil you refer to. Please don't include fossils from the Cambrian period. There should be plenty of others to select from.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Every fossil ever found does verify Darwinian evolution."

Actually....not a single one does.

If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution that goes back to a "God of the gap" fallacy.

If you're referring to fossils that have actually been found, I'm very curious as to which fossil you refer to. Please don't include fossils from the Cambrian period. There should be plenty of others to select from.

"If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."

Wow....I've reduced you to claiming not to understand what I posted in clear intelligible English.

I love it.


OK...let's pretend together.....you're claim is that if one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory.

You've been catapulted from dunce to liar.

Scientists,and recognized scientific journals verify what I said: There is no fossil evidence for Darwin.


1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


4. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.




In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!!

 

[alang1216]

And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.

"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.
Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.
Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton


Yet, morons continue to march lock step with the Leftists who propagate the myth.



From the OP:
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Amazing.

There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches. There is NO evidence for Creationism but, since it is theologically, ideologically, and socially superior it must be true? Let me think, should I believe you or my lying eyes?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.

"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.
Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.
Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton


Yet, morons continue to march lock step with the Leftists who propagate the myth.



From the OP:
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Amazing.

There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches. There is NO evidence for Creationism but, since it is theologically, ideologically, and socially superior it must be true? Let me think, should I believe you or my lying eyes?

"....blah blah blah... Darwin's Finches."

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.

No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
Nice retrograde movement, there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.

"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.
Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.
Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton


Yet, morons continue to march lock step with the Leftists who propagate the myth.



From the OP:
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Amazing.

There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches. There is NO evidence for Creationism but, since it is theologically, ideologically, and socially superior it must be true? Let me think, should I believe you or my lying eyes?

I've been happy to use your posts because they allow me to reveal how every myth and fable of the Left, and their ignorant followers, is false.

Educated folks know Darwinian evolution is a fabrication.


Soooo....you probably don't have the background to understand this evisceration, but....perhaps some will.

You, because you are a dunce, said this:
"There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches."


1. "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches." "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," p. 10. by National Academy of Sciences

Pretty good example of how Darwin's theory may have begun as a scientific theory, but is now no more than ideology. Darwin's finches are an instance not of speciation, but of variation within a population.



2. Darwin studied different finch species on the Galápagos Islands, later attributing the differences in beak size and feeding habits amongst these birds to evolution. Thirteen species live on the Galápagos Islands themselves and one species on Cocos Island, some 600 kilometers to the northeast. Although these birds are classified into 14 different species, they closely resemble one another, possessing similar body shapes, colors, and habits. According to the National Academy of Sciences book, these birds evolved from a single species that came from South America. Darwinists have been portraying these birds as an example of evolution by means of natural selection, and the best-known proof of evolution!

3. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that the emergence of new species by means of natural selection is a very slow process, which is why it cannot be observed, but only inferred. But in an article in the April 1953 edition of Scientific American magazine, the ornithologist David Lack claimed that the evolution of the birds on the Galápagos had taken place in the recent past, and that this could even be seen as proof of differentiation between species.

4. Peter Grant and his wife Rosemary Grant, two researchers who first went to the Galápagos Islands in 1973, with the aim of observing the effects of evolution on the finches, and carried out detailed studies and observations in the following years. They are thus remembered as experts on Darwin's finches. Peter Grant, in fact, suggested that the evolution of the Galápagos finches was still going on. Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, October 1991, pp. 82-87

5. The Grant's studied individual members of the medium ground finch species on the Galápagos for years, and regularly monitored some 20,000 finches across several generations, kept careful records of both their beak size, and of the weather....rainfall...on the island. The amount of rain is of vital importance for the finches, which feed on seeds. In years when rain is plentiful, the finches can easily find the seeds they need to grow and reproduce. In years of drought, however, the number of seeds produced by plants is limited and may not be enough; as a result some finches die of starvation.

6. After a drought period, the average beak was approximately half a millimeter, or 5%, larger in 1977 compared to 1976. Taking this as their starting point, the researchers suggested those finches which fed solely on small seeds were weeded out, while those with beaks capable of breaking and opening larger and harder shells survived.

In an article in the journal Scientific American published in October 1991, Peter Grant declared that this research was direct proof of evolution. According to Grant, 20 selection events were sufficient to turn the medium ground finch into the large ground finch; if it is assumed that there is a drought every 10 years, then such a change could happen in as little as 200 years. Grant renewed his claims in subsequent articles, insisting that finches had verified Darwinism and proved that natural selection caused living things to evolve. Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant, "Speciation and Hybridization in Island Birds," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351, 1996, pp. 765-772

7. But hold on..... With the rain there was an abundance of seeds, and the beak size in medium ground finches returned to its previous value to before the drought of 1977. This astonished evolutionists, who were expecting regular growth in beak size. In short, the findings show that there is no such thing as evolutionary change. Average beak size sometimes rises above a fixed value according to the seasons and sometimes falls-in other words, it fluctuates. As a result, there is no directional change.

Just as the English peppered moth population varied with the air pollution in the Industrial Revolution....the finch population varied with rainfall.

8.The 1999 booklet published by the National Academy describes Darwin's finches as "a particularly compelling example" of the origin of species. The booklet goes on to explain how the Grants and their colleagues showed "that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches," and that "if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years." Rather than mention that selection was reversed after the drought, producing no long-term evolutionary change, the booklet simply omits this awkward fact. "
Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution", pp. 174-175; See also National Academy of Sciences, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences", Second Edition, Washington DC, 1999

The above, and more detail, found here: http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php





Have I put you in your place enough....or do you need to be embarrassed even more?

 

[alang1216]

"If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."

Wow....I've reduced you to claiming not to understand what I posted in clear intelligible English.

I love it.

OK...let's pretend together.....you're claim is that if one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory.

Not quite. Are you saying that if you pick a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory being wrong?

What I'm saying is that there is an evolutionary tree of life based on descent from a common ancestor. If one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!.... That fossil would fit into that evolutionary tree. There are no 100 million year old elephants.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."

Wow....I've reduced you to claiming not to understand what I posted in clear intelligible English.

I love it.

OK...let's pretend together.....you're claim is that if one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory.

Not quite. Are you saying that if you pick a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory being wrong?

What I'm saying is that there is an evolutionary tree of life based on descent from a common ancestor. If one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!.... That fossil would fit into that evolutionary tree. There are no 100 million year old elephants.

Stop sounding like a moron.....if you can.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."

Wow....I've reduced you to claiming not to understand what I posted in clear intelligible English.

I love it.

OK...let's pretend together.....you're claim is that if one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory.

Not quite. Are you saying that if you pick a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory being wrong?

What I'm saying is that there is an evolutionary tree of life based on descent from a common ancestor. If one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!.... That fossil would fit into that evolutionary tree. There are no 100 million year old elephants.

Did you just run away from the 'Darwin's Finches' are proof' argument????

Excellent.

 

[alang1216]

I've been happy to use your posts because they allow me to reveal how every myth and fable of the Left, and their ignorant followers, is false.

Educated folks know Darwinian evolution is a fabrication.

Soooo....you probably don't have the background to understand this evisceration, but....perhaps some will.

You, because you are a dunce, said this:
"There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches."

1. "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches." "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," p. 10. by National Academy of Sciences

Pretty good example of how Darwin's theory may have begun as a scientific theory, but is now no more than ideology. Darwin's finches are an instance not of speciation, but of variation within a population.

Your paste snippets admit that environmental pressure changes the population. Continuing pressure would logically lead to continuing changes. Given enough time and pressure a new species will logically result. Should the pressure reverse, so too would the changes reverse. Logical.

 

[alang1216]

Stop sounding like a moron.....if you can.

Good rebuttal.

 

[alang1216]

Did you just run away from the 'Darwin's Finches' are proof' argument????

Excellent.

'Darwin's Finches' are evidence.

 

[alang1216]

No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
Nice retrograde movement, there.

All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory. I don't believe that quote is mine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've been happy to use your posts because they allow me to reveal how every myth and fable of the Left, and their ignorant followers, is false.

Educated folks know Darwinian evolution is a fabrication.

Soooo....you probably don't have the background to understand this evisceration, but....perhaps some will.

You, because you are a dunce, said this:
"There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches."

1. "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches." "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," p. 10. by National Academy of Sciences

Pretty good example of how Darwin's theory may have begun as a scientific theory, but is now no more than ideology. Darwin's finches are an instance not of speciation, but of variation within a population.

Your paste snippets admit that environmental pressure changes the population. Continuing pressure would logically lead to continuing changes. Given enough time and pressure a new species will logically result. Should the pressure reverse, so too would the changes reverse. Logical.

It's the very same population, you dunce.

"But after the drought, birds with smaller beaks flourished again, and the average beak size of the population returned to normal. No net evolution had occurred. No matter; Darwin’s finches became an icon of evolution that is still featured in most biology textbooks."
Darwin's Finches: The Hype Continues | Evolution News

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop sounding like a moron.....if you can.

Good rebuttal.

There was nothing to rebut.

I was simply describing you accurately.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
Nice retrograde movement, there.

All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory. I don't believe that quote is mine.

"All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory."

Link or lie?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you just run away from the 'Darwin's Finches' are proof' argument????

Excellent.

'Darwin's Finches' are evidence.

OMG!

An 'is not, issss nootttttt!!!' post.

 

[alang1216]

It's the very same population, you dunce.

Looks like more than one population to me.

 

[alang1216]

No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
Nice retrograde movement, there.

All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory. I don't believe that quote is mine.

"All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory."

Link or lie?

Personal knowledge. Also, if there were a fossil that contradicted Darwin's theory it would be the biggest news in a millennium.