Evolution or Darwin?

[G.T.]

It would be funny if we WERE "intelligently designed," too, because that wouldn't at all require a supernatural being to even do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is hilarious.

Thanks PC, this is great.

The arrogance in the face of ignorance that she displays for all to see is joyous.

Arrogant....true.

But totally correct.....including about you being a dunce screaming to be relevant.


I notice you no longer claim 'mutation' is the same as 'evolution.'

See...you are capable of learning.

 

[G.T.]

No, sorry hun. You're not smarter than the brilliant men and women who put the body of work together which proved evolution; working countless hours on excavations - study - dna - biology - mathematics - physics.

That's not you.

You're an irrelevant conspiracy theorist who has not put that work in, yet soapboxes as if you know something. A denier.

Mutation is evolution, but I know by your posts that you don't even understand what that means. When an organism mutates, it evolves.

Evolution isn't always in the direction of "better." Wrap your arrogant yet deluded brain around that for a moment. I know more about science than you know about Ann Coulter, sheep.

 

[G.T.]

<3ing this article hot off the presses this morning. The future is bright.

NASA Spacecraft Finds Bounty of Alien Planets, Including 104 Potentially Habitable Worlds

 

[G.T.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes]Why Richard Dawkins Doesn't Debate Creationists - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xleJhAvMjw]Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 1/3 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHYQ8LRZ-M]Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 2/3 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Th_6ioq3wE]Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 3/3 - YouTube[/ame]


plug your ears, close your eyes, and go lalalalala

 

[orogenicman]

b. Steven J. Gould 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)

That phrase never actually appears anywhere in volume 86 of Natural History, either in or outside of a Gould article. Either the source you're cutting and pasting from is grossly incompetent or is outright lying. If they can't even give a correct citation on a smoking gun statement that kills evolution, why are they expected to be right on anything else?

You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the entire volume online for yourself: https://archive.org/details/naturalhistory86newy

All of the following are statements by Stephen Gould.
You may track down the original books/articles.


1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

2. The history of most fossil species includes two 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 is 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 &#8220;fully formed.&#8221;
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

3. Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology.
"A Quahog is a Quahog", p. 213

4. A complete theory of evolution must acknowledge a balance between &#8220;external&#8221; forces of environment imposing selection for local adaptation and &#8220;internal&#8221; forces representing constraints of inheritance and development. Vavilov placed too much emphasis on internal constraints and downgraded the power of selection. But Western Darwinians have erred equally in practically ignoring (while acknowledging in theory) the limits placed on selection by structure and development&#8212;what Vavilov and the older biologists would have called &#8220;laws of form.&#8221;
"A Hearing for Vavilov", p. 144

5. Advocates for a single line of progress encounter their greatest stumbling block when they try to find a smooth link between the apparently disparate designs of the invertebrates and vertebrates.
"Brotherhood by Inversion", p. 320



You may doubt Gould, or Darwin....but you make a mistake in doubting me.

Ignoring the fact that you've been shown time and time again that every one of those statements are out of context demonstrates willful lying on your part. You know, of course, that that sort of thing will land you in God's nether regions (aka, hell), right? My father always said to me, never suffer a liar or a thief. Well, you are both. You are a liar, and a plagiarist, which also makes you a thief. What's worse, you willfully violate one of your God's prime directives, that is, you bear false witness every time you post these lies. You should be ashamed of yourself, but sociopaths like you rarely feel remorse over their actions. So no, doubting you is never a mistake.

 

[orogenicman]

Best way to raise the blood pressure of a secular-science advocate is to criticize Darwin.

Unless that scientist's field of choice is mechanical engineering, in which case, why would he/her care?



Only the scientifically pre-literate make that claim.



You'd have to be deluded to ever come to your conclusion with regard to what your "debate battle-partner" has said. But then, your utter ignorance with regard to science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular has already been shown to be a result of your religious delusions.



If this is the way you teach, it is a good thing you aren't a real teacher, because you would not long survive the profession.

You argue your case as if refuting anything, even one little thing, that Darwin said or did (which, of course, you have never been able to do) will cause the theory of evolution to come crumbling down, ignoring, of course, the intervening 150 years of scientific achievement. Are you brain damaged, or what? Judging from the fact that you ignore any evidence presented to you in this thread or anywhere else, I have to assume that that is an affirmative. I'd recommend that you see a doctor, but darn, so many of them are "Darwinists", what's an ignoramus like you to do?

Scram, liar.

Once again, you've checked your brain at the door. Did you get a receipt?

 

[orogenicman]

A mutation is evolution. It's never not. This doesn't even need to be explained it's so fundamental. Just stfu already.

Thanks for stopping by, but this discussion is beyond you.


Why am I responsible for your education????
I understand your desire to appear relevant....or conscious...but, let's be honest: you're a fool.






"Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created.

But this seems paradoxical because
most mutations that we observe are
harmful (e.g., many missense mutations) or, at best,
neutral, for example:
"silent" mutations encoding the same amino acid
perhaps many of the mutations in the vast amounts of DNA that lie between genes.
most mutations in genes affect a single protein product (or a small set of related proteins produced by alternative splicing of a single gene transcript) while much evolutionary change involves myriad structural and functional changes in the phenotype.
So how can the small changes in genes caused by mutations, especially single-base substitutions ("point mutations"), lead to the large changes that distinguish one species from another?"
Mutation and Evolution


This is evolution: "... distinguish one species from another."

To say 'a mutation' is equivalent to 'evolution' is the same as saying a single dollar is the same as a million dollars.

I suppose you might actually believe that....

Dunce.

As a matter of fact, most mutations do nothing at all. Detrimental mutations can and often leads to death of the organism. Beneficial mutations often enhances an organism's survival. This is one of the most fundamental principles of biology. But you wouldn't know that because you aren't even house broken.

 

[G.T.]

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity - Telegraph

 

[Steven_R]

You may doubt Gould, or Darwin....but you make a mistake in doubting me.

So that's your fall back position? You throw a bunch of quotes at me and when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited (the first one and only one I looked for by the way), you throw a bunch more at me without citations. The onus is on you to provide credible sources, and to check them before presenting them, not on me to make sure you're right.

Neverminding that, you sidestepped the question. If the sources you're cutting and pasting from can't even get a simple citation right, what makes you think anything else they put forward is correct or accurate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You may doubt Gould, or Darwin....but you make a mistake in doubting me.

So that's your fall back position? You throw a bunch of quotes at me and when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited (the first one and only one I looked for by the way), you throw a bunch more at me without citations. The onus is on you to provide credible sources, and to check them before presenting them, not on me to make sure you're right.

Neverminding that, you sidestepped the question. If the sources you're cutting and pasting from can't even get a simple citation right, what makes you think anything else they put forward is correct or accurate?

"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...."

You found no such thing.

It exists exactly as quoted.

 

[G.T.]

First cite: Natural History, 86:12-16

Second cite: "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

His point was that it doesn't exist at the first cite.

You dipped, ducked and dodged. But - you're always "honest."

 

[PoliticalChic]

First cite: Natural History, 86:12-16

Second cite: "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

His point was that it doesn't exist at the first cite.

You dipped, ducked and dodged. But - you're always "honest."

Doesn't it pique your interest why our friend argues about the location of the quote but not the truth of same?

Now....why is that?


Because Gould actually verifies exactly what I've been saying....and you members of the religion of Darwinism fear the truth.



After all.....what would it mean if my premise is correct?




OMG! I almost advised you to 'think for yourself'!!!

That'd be like advising a whale to fly!!!!

 

[G.T.]

First cite: Natural History, 86:12-16

Second cite: "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

His point was that it doesn't exist at the first cite.

You dipped, ducked and dodged. But - you're always "honest."

Doesn't it pique your interest why our friend argues about the location of the quote but not the truth of same?

Now....why is that?


Because Gould actually verifies exactly what I've been saying....and you members of the religion of Darwinism fear the truth.



After all.....what would it mean if my premise is correct?




OMG! I almost advised you to 'think for yourself'!!!

That'd be like advising a whale to fly!!!!

It piques my interest that you didn't vet the original source (obviously, because the quote wasn't where it was cited), got lucky enough that it existed, and now are obfuscating. Steven R call you out on a mis-cite, you aren't owning up to it because you're dishonest intellectually. You know that already, though.

You're not smart, you just try to play one on the internet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First cite: Natural History, 86:12-16

Second cite: "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

His point was that it doesn't exist at the first cite.

You dipped, ducked and dodged. But - you're always "honest."

Doesn't it pique your interest why our friend argues about the location of the quote but not the truth of same?

Now....why is that?


Because Gould actually verifies exactly what I've been saying....and you members of the religion of Darwinism fear the truth.



After all.....what would it mean if my premise is correct?




OMG! I almost advised you to 'think for yourself'!!!

That'd be like advising a whale to fly!!!!

It piques my interest that you didn't vet the original source (obviously, because the quote wasn't where it was cited), got lucky enough that it existed, and now are obfuscating. Steven R call you out on a mis-cite, you aren't owning up to it because you're dishonest intellectually. You know that already, though.

You're not smart, you just try to play one on the internet.

Nonsense.
Telling that you fail to mention the significance of the quote.



The quote was both accurate and proved Darwinism fatally flawed.


Can't wait for your book to come out, "How I Got Through Life Knowing Absolutely Nothing."

 

[G.T.]

"Natural History, 86:12-16" - politicalchic

The quote does not exist at that cite.


"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...." - steven_r

This is the truth, it doesn't exist AS CITED.

"You found no such thing." - politicalchic

This makes you a liar. He did find a quote of yours that didn't exist AS CITED, just like he said.

And to solidify your fail, you properly cited it posts later. Nice try though, liar. Wipe that smear off your chin, now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Natural History, 86:12-16" - politicalchic

The quote does not exist at that cite.


"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...." - steven_r

This is the truth, it doesn't exist AS CITED.

"You found no such thing." - politicalchic

This makes you a liar. He did find a quote of yours that didn't exist AS CITED, just like he said.

And to solidify your fail, you properly cited it posts later. Nice try though, liar. Wipe that smear off your chin, now.

I never lie.
But you do....right in this post.

The quote was correct....now you're doing everything a dunce like you can to pretend you don't have to deal with the import.


And...it was correct as cited.
cite
s&#299;t/Submit
verb
past tense: cited;&#8195;past participle: cited
1.
quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work.



Still afraid to deal with the quote?

That's the proof I need.

 

[G.T.]

"Natural History, 86:12-16" - politicalchic

The quote does not exist at that cite.


"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...." - steven_r

This is the truth, it doesn't exist AS CITED.

"You found no such thing." - politicalchic

This makes you a liar. He did find a quote of yours that didn't exist AS CITED, just like he said.

And to solidify your fail, you properly cited it posts later. Nice try though, liar. Wipe that smear off your chin, now.

I never lie.
But you do....right in this post.

The quote was correct....now you're doing everything a dunce like you can to pretend you don't have to deal with the import.




Still afraid to deal with the quote?

That's the proof I need.

The citation was incorrect.

The citation.

Not the quote, the cite.

Dipshit.

And it was, and you lied.

 

[G.T.]

What is found here: Natural History, 86:12-16


Bueller, bueller?

 

[Steven_R]

You may doubt Gould, or Darwin....but you make a mistake in doubting me.

So that's your fall back position? You throw a bunch of quotes at me and when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited (the first one and only one I looked for by the way), you throw a bunch more at me without citations. The onus is on you to provide credible sources, and to check them before presenting them, not on me to make sure you're right.

Neverminding that, you sidestepped the question. If the sources you're cutting and pasting from can't even get a simple citation right, what makes you think anything else they put forward is correct or accurate?

"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...."

You found no such thing.

It exists exactly as quoted.

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?