Defending Darwin

[Hollie]

1. No, I poke no holes in Darwin's theory.

1. How is it that you have convinced yourself that you are poking holes in anything
Cutting and pasting edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" from an islamic creationist charlatan only dismantles your credibility.



2.It was comically tragic to see your out of context "quote" from Stephen Gould. It's a "quote" that you apparently lifted from Harun Yahya. It's a "quote" that I'm familiar with as being one of many that is a staple of creationist hacks such as yourself. Your cutting and pasting is typical of the ignorant and sloppy tactics which define religious extremists.



3. Here is the "quote" you apparently plagiarized from Harun Yahya:

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)




4. What's comical is that you are too stupid to have understood that while your "quote" was taken out of context, Harun Yahya didn't even get the attribution right.




5. Here, you can find the "quote", in context, correctly attributed to The Pandas Thumb, by Stephen Gould

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

6. Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

7. Following this passage is:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.


"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

8. By the way, as part of your personal jihad against the truth, you may wish to advise your pals at Harun Yahya's site that they consistently identify Niles Eldredge as Miles Eldredge. Just more of the ID'iosy you and your islamic creationists get completely wrong.



9. You lie, you falsify and you post fraudulent "quotes" in your cartoon-efforts to vilify science.



10. What a joke.

 

[Hollie]

1. No, I poke no holes in Darwin's theory.
He recognized that he had no fossil proof for his theory....

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

More creationist lies, out of context and parsed "quotes".



How really sleazy is it that you are forced to lie to defend your creationist extremism?


Your "quote" is yet another fraud. I won't bother with adding anything more than a link.



Others can review the information and come to their own conclusions.



I'll look forward to reviewing more of your lies and posting the corrected, fuller accounts.



Jut as I did in two other threads you opened and drenched with falsified "quotes", I'll be glad to expose your fraudulent cutting and pasting.

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

 

[Hollie]

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

This fraud was exposed in a prior thread you opened and bailed out of when your fraudulent cutting and pasting was exposed.


How many times and in how many threads are you going to cut and paste the same fraud?





Gee whiz, but princess was on a cut and paste tear across the web. Ya’ know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are creationists really so desperately insecure in their belief system that their compelled to scour the internet to find validation of their beliefs by quote mining? How sad!

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution.

You know, while the web can be an invaluable source of information / data gathering, it can also be a playground for cut & pasters such as the princess. There are those... "less than discriminating types", who scour the web for "quotes" they cut and paste without feeling any need or obligation to confirm the accuracy of their "quotes".

Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears in virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.


Regarding your phony "quote", we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:

Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

 

[orogenicman]

1. No, I poke no holes in Darwin's theory.
He recognized that he had no fossil proof for his theory....

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

More creationist lies, out of context and parsed "quotes".



How really sleazy is it that you are forced to lie to defend your creationist extremism?


Your "quote" is yet another fraud. I won't bother with adding anything more than a link.



Others can review the information and come to their own conclusions.



I'll look forward to reviewing more of your lies and posting the corrected, fuller accounts.



Jut as I did in two other threads you opened and drenched with falsified "quotes", I'll be glad to expose your fraudulent cutting and pasting.

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

The fact that she quotes Darwin and then ignores the 150 years of scientific achievement that came after, and declares that as evidence that evolution is fake, is willful deceit. What I don't understand is how they have managed to rationalize their deceit in light of the fact that lying is one of the "sins" they, as Christians, are not supposed to be committing.

Darwin's dilemma resolved: Evolution's 'big bang' explained by five times faster rates of evolution

The findings, published online today in the journal Current Biology, resolve "Darwin's dilemma": the sudden appearance of a plethora of modern animal groups in the fossil record during the early Cambrian period.

Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life

Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life

http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol 9/Pages 599-628.pdf

Precambrian fossils:

https://www.google.com/search?q=pre...rYGoBg&ved=0CE0QsAQ4Cg&biw=1344&bih=705&dpr=1

Bitter Springs Fm, Australia

Vendian Animals

Precambrian Fossils

Precambrian fossils bibliography

 

[Spoonman]

so if we believe in evolution and its principles, which includes survival of the fittest, why do we penalize our fittest and aid our weakest with entitlements? why not let the strong survive?

 

[orogenicman]

so if we believe in evolution and its principles, which includes survival of the fittest, why do we penalize our fittest and aid our weakest with entitlements? why not let the strong survive?

The idea is that people should care about one another, and want to help our fellow man. At least, that is what my mother taught me, and likely, her mother taught her. I can't speak for anyone else. But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We may be animals, but we are still human beings.

 

[rightwinger]

God made Darwin

 

[Spoonman]

so if we believe in evolution and its principles, which includes survival of the fittest, why do we penalize our fittest and aid our weakest with entitlements? why not let the strong survive?

The idea is that people should care about one another, and want to help our fellow man. At least, that is what my mother taught me, and likely, her mother taught her. I can't speak for anyone else. But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We may be animals, but we are still human beings.

but can we help others who really do not want to help themselves? i'm fine with helping someone while they are in school, getting an education or learning a trade. but i'm not ok continuing to help them when they fail to do that and start creating future generations mired in their same problems.

 

[orogenicman]

God made Darwin

Who made God?

 

[Spoonman]

God made Darwin

all darwin did was identify a law of nature. we are trying to play god and manipulate that law. it will never work

 

[orogenicman]

so if we believe in evolution and its principles, which includes survival of the fittest, why do we penalize our fittest and aid our weakest with entitlements? why not let the strong survive?

The idea is that people should care about one another, and want to help our fellow man. At least, that is what my mother taught me, and likely, her mother taught her. I can't speak for anyone else. But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We may be animals, but we are still human beings.

but can we help others who really do not want to help themselves? i'm fine with helping someone while they are in school, getting an education or learning a trade. but i'm not ok continuing to help them when they fail to do that and start creating future generations mired in their same problems.

So, your Christian values tell you to just let them rot in the gutter? How Christlike...or not. Not everyone is as fortunate as you.

 

[itfitzme]

I've had some fun toying with the fanatics who cling to the theory of Darwinian evolution like a Titanic life raft....I got them to attack, and show their ignorance [and dishonesty?] by their claiming empirical evidence for the theory exists.

Any who suggest weakness in the theory of evolution can expect to be referred to thusly: "... the uni-brow/paste-eater/low thinkers..."
Of course, that analysis comes from a uni-brow/paste-eater/low thinker.




Let me suggest two reasons for the attacks.
One, fear of having to defend a heterodox viewpoint.....that would require actual thought.
And two, not having the science acumen to understand what the theory is, and is based on.




1. Evolution is not the cyclical change within a gene pool, i.e., the moth population in England darkened, and then lightened due to pollution of the Industrial Revolution.
I know, you learned that it was in high school biology....but it is a misnomer. That is not what Darwin was calling evolution.

2. Darwinian evolution is successive change, from one species into another, due to the accumulation of alterations due to random mutations. These are tiny changes, and each makes the organism better suited to survive, i.e., natural selection.

a. Steven J. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, reported:
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)





3. So, this is where an honest defense of Darwin begins. While the liars and the fanatic religion haters.....you know who you are....outright lie and claim that the problem of missing fossil evidence is present...it is not....or that pointing out this flaw makes one anti-science, or irrational,....it does not..... we should begin by accepting the truth.
Darwin did.


a. As the above-labeled folks seem unable, it seems that I have to handle both sides of the debate. Not that I'm not up to it.....OK...begin by pointing out that the greatest scientist of the era, Louis Agassiz of Harvard, decried Darwin's theory.

4. Paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. .... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '" So saith Agassiz.
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

a. Generally, this is where the first attack begins: Agassiz was deeply religious. But, if this is a reason to throw out his science expertise, it is the same basis for tossing an atheist-scientist's viewpoint.

While he was religious, historian Neal Gillespie writes that Agassiz "was second to no man in his opposition to sectarian religious interference with science."
Neal C. Gillespie, "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation," p. 51.




5. OK....let's support Darwin already!

Rather than attacking Agassiz's credibility...actually, it is unassailable....accept it, and point out that science itself has moved away from his viewpoint. In several threads, it was obvious that proponents of Darwinian evolution were stymied every time they were prompted to show fossils that documented the theory, they did everything they could to obfuscate.

6. But, even without evidence, Darwin's theory is, today, largely accepted.
The reason is a change in the philosophy of science.
First, many eminent scientists agreed with Darwin, that just because we haven't found the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't...or didn't exist. This was the position of Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel, Asa Gray and others.
The theory itself seemed just too eloquent to pass up.
'Logic,' rather than fossil proof, won the day over evidence.





7. The philosophical turn was this: by the late 19th century, whether based on the growing child's demand to 'let me do it myself,' or the Enlightenment's desire to replace God with science, "it increasingly excluded appeals to divine action or divine ideas as a way of explaining phenomena in the natural world....According to [methodological naturalism], ...all features of the natural world can be explained by material causes without recourses to purposive intelligence, mind, or conscious agency."
Stephen C, Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 19.

a. So, proponents wag their finger and lecture, one must accept this new iteration of science if one is willing to accept all the benefits it provides because it has 'searched out strictly material causes for previously mysterious features...' Ibid.


b.So, here we have the scientists' mantra: one cannot look anywhere but to material provenance. If we agree to that.....Darwin becomes our god.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”




So....that's why Darwin is ahead on points. There is no disputing the benefits that science has provided...and 'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!'

And based on this view, or definition of science......

...Darwin cannot be disputed!

Unfortunately, lacking a college education, ytou aren't in a position to think critically about science.

But good for you for trying.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Unfortunetly, PC's problem is not a lack of education. I have known people that lacked a high school education that taught themselves to think critically. Her problem is that she believes science is done by bending the evidence to fit preconcieved ideas.

 

[Vikrant]

There are two logical explanations for the existence of universe (or matter).

First Explanation:

In order for universe (or anything to exist), it has to have a creator. So now we have creator who created the universe. The necessity of a creator is an intrinsic part of this argument. Therefore, there has to a creator who created the creator. This leads to an infinite chain of creators aka Gods. This idea may appeal to some people but it does not appeal to me and frankly speaking there is no proof at all that supports this line of thinking.

Second Explanation:

The universe and the matter along with time and other components which comprise it was always here and will always be here. We will see universe and its components shifting from one form to another. This is evolution. Darwin talked about evolution on a very granular level as it relates to life on this earth but his ideas are equally applicable on the grand level of things. On the cosmic level, we can see a weak star being consumed by a strong star. This is the survival of the fittest being played out in the major league.