Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[PoliticalChic]

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

An education gone to waste...

Columbia University sheds a collective tear today

An admission of defeat???

I just love it when you toss in the white towel, ignore the message, and go to some attack on the messenger.


Losing every time must really be driving you crazy, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
Robert L. Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

The typical mistake made by those who don’t understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that the Earth is constantly changing, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution.

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.

 

[rightwinger]

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

An education gone to waste...

Columbia University sheds a collective tear today

An admission of defeat???

I just love it when you toss in the white towel, ignore the message, and go to some attack on the messenger.


Losing every time must really be driving you crazy, huh?

No, the last gasps of a once great university

Cut and Paste U

 

[newpolitics]

"You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn."

This post of yours truly gave me a chuckle.....it is a knee-slapper, if unintentionally so.


I've seen your posts....gone over them carefully with my SEM, in fact.....looking for any hint of intelligence.
To date: none.

The idea of looking toward one of your ability in order "to learn"?????

As I said....a knee-slapper.

Yeah I don't really care. You're a buffoon. Anyone who could wrote something like the OP clearly is. You obviously think you're very smart, yet, you demonstrate over and over again, quite the opposite.

Did you know that botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is useful to control your drooling, crossed eyes, and sweaty palms?

Just tryin’ to be helpful.

You really are good at not addressing things and instead, ridiculing others to evade a response. I was being truthful when I wrote what I did. Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone. But, instead you invite a discourse where you simply attack those that believe in evolution. It's quite hilarious considering your explanation involves a god, which takes faith to believe. In other words, you have zero evidence for intelligent design/creation. Therefore, you sound absurd, and are absurd for doing this. By the way, there is another thread already on creationism. Why don't you jump on that and help your friends over there. We don't need another one of these pointless threads.

 

[newpolitics]

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

An education gone to waste...

Columbia University sheds a collective tear today

An admission of defeat???

I just love it when you toss in the white towel, ignore the message, and go to some attack on the messenger.


Losing every time must really be driving you crazy, huh?

You're not one to speak. You just did this to me. That's quite a short memory you have.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
Robert L. Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

The typical mistake made by those who don’t understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that the Earth is constantly changing, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution.

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

 

[PoliticalChic]

An education gone to waste...

Columbia University sheds a collective tear today

An admission of defeat???

I just love it when you toss in the white towel, ignore the message, and go to some attack on the messenger.


Losing every time must really be driving you crazy, huh?

You're not one to speak. You just did this to me. That's quite a short memory you have.

I have a deep and abiding affection for the old timer.

You....not so much.


Let me know when you need another slapping-around.

 

[newpolitics]

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

The typical mistake made by those who don’t understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that the Earth is constantly changing, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution.

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

Wait, are you positing that life doesn't respond to geological and climatic change? Of course it does. Who the hell cares what Lamarck said... Since the earth has been changing since its beginning, life is constantly responding to changes in landscape and climate, and this change drives evolution. Geographical location is a major factor in determining the morphology of a creature. I'm not what the fuck you're sniveling about. You just made an ass of yourself, showing everyone that you know shit about evolution, yet you pretend to disbelieve it. You don't. Like all other creatards, you disbelieve a misconception you have of evolution. A strawman.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah I don't really care. You're a buffoon. Anyone who could wrote something like the OP clearly is. You obviously think you're very smart, yet, you demonstrate over and over again, quite the opposite.

Did you know that botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is useful to control your drooling, crossed eyes, and sweaty palms?

Just tryin’ to be helpful.

You really are good at not addressing things and instead, ridiculing others to evade a response. I was being truthful when I wrote what I did. Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone. But, instead you invite a discourse where you simply attack those that believe in evolution. It's quite hilarious considering your explanation involves a god, which takes faith to believe. In other words, you have zero evidence for intelligent design/creation. Therefore, you sound absurd, and are absurd for doing this. By the way, there is another thread already on creationism. Why don't you jump on that and help your friends over there. We don't need another one of these pointless threads.

" ridiculing others to evade a response."

OK...I admit that I take the easy way out: I ridicule the easy-to-ridicule.

Know who that is?
Right!!!

 

[Sallow]

Yes.

 

[newpolitics]

Did you know that botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is useful to control your drooling, crossed eyes, and sweaty palms?

Just tryin’ to be helpful.

You really are good at not addressing things and instead, ridiculing others to evade a response. I was being truthful when I wrote what I did. Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone. But, instead you invite a discourse where you simply attack those that believe in evolution. It's quite hilarious considering your explanation involves a god, which takes faith to believe. In other words, you have zero evidence for intelligent design/creation. Therefore, you sound absurd, and are absurd for doing this. By the way, there is another thread already on creationism. Why don't you jump on that and help your friends over there. We don't need another one of these pointless threads.

" ridiculing others to evade a response."

OK...I admit that I take the easy way out: I ridicule the easy-to-ridicule.

Know who that is?
Right!!!

Funny, coming from one who denies evolution and believes a magic sky created us because of a book written 2,000 years ago. Easy to ridicule? That would be you.

 

[rightwinger]

Shall we examine the motivation of threads by the Cut and Paste Princess?

Is it to engage in serious discussion or is it to expound ridiculous theories and giggle as you receive serious responses and obfuscate using unrelated cut and pastes and convoluted logic.

Rather than engage in childish logic loops with PC, I prefer to engage her on the tragic waste of time and money that she calls her education

 

[PoliticalChic]

The typical mistake made by those who don’t understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that the Earth is constantly changing, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution.

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

Wait, are you positing that life doesn't respond to geological and climatic change? Of course it does. Who the hell cares what Lamarck said... Since the earth has been changing since its beginning, life is constantly responding to changes in landscape and climate, and this change drives evolution. Geographical location is a major factor in determining the morphology of a creature. I'm not what the fuck you're sniveling about. You just made an ass of yourself, showing everyone that you know shit about evolution, yet you pretend to disbelieve it. You don't. Like all other creatards, you disbelieve a misconception you have of evolution. A strawman.

Now....see....folks are gonna believe that you're just my sock puppet....here to embarrass the other side!!

Remember this: "Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone."


Now take notes, dummy:
The basis for the scientific explanation for evolution is mutations, random, unpredictable change that most commonly are fatal to an organism.


Lamarck was incorrect, his theory actually used in Russian agriculture until the 1950's or so....

...every one realizes that the changes are not due to perceived necessity by an organism.

Everyone except dunces like you and Claypot.


Thank me.

 

[del]

Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

chunky gets dopier by the minute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shall we examine the motivation of threads by the Cut and Paste Princess?

Is it to engage in serious discussion or is it to expound ridiculous theories and giggle as you receive serious responses and obfuscate using unrelated cut and pastes and convoluted logic.

Rather than engage in childish logic loops with PC, I prefer to engage her on the tragic waste of time and money that she calls her education

OK....now you've gone too darn far:

I'm putting you on double secret probation....


But...I will play your music for you:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP34u6rdscs]Howlin' Wolf - Smoke Stack Lightning - YouTube[/ame]



Feel better now?

 

[newpolitics]

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

Wait, are you positing that life doesn't respond to geological and climatic change? Of course it does. Who the hell cares what Lamarck said... Since the earth has been changing since its beginning, life is constantly responding to changes in landscape and climate, and this change drives evolution. Geographical location is a major factor in determining the morphology of a creature. I'm not what the fuck you're sniveling about. You just made an ass of yourself, showing everyone that you know shit about evolution, yet you pretend to disbelieve it. You don't. Like all other creatards, you disbelieve a misconception you have of evolution. A strawman.

Now....see....folks are gonna believe that you're just my sock puppet....here to embarrass the other side!!

Remember this: "Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone."


Now take notes, dummy:
The basis for the scientific explanation for evolution is mutations, random, unpredictable change that most commonly are fatal to an organism.


Lamarck was incorrect, his theory actually used in Russian agriculture until the 1950's or so....

...every one realizes that the changes are not due to perceived necessity by an organism.

Everyone except dunces like you and Claypot.


Thank me.

You know nothing. That much is clear. Thank you for making that so easy to understand. That's about all I have to thank you for.

One major source for selective pressure is environment. This includes geology and climate, which are ever-changing. Instead of referring needlessly to Lamark, which is basically a non-sequitur, try to actually refute the point, which you haven't.

 

[Greenbeard]

Shall we examine the motivation of threads by the Cut and Paste Princess?

Please phrase your answer in the form of a numbered list.

 

[newpolitics]

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

The typical mistake made by those who don’t understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that the Earth is constantly changing, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution.

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

You gave me a link to another discussion thread on yahoo, as if this is a credible source and is supposed to demonstrate a single thing?!! What is wrong with your head?

No one here is arguing for Lamarckian evolution, you dumbfuck. So stop mentioning his name. It doesn't mean he got everything wrong, and I don't know what his ideas have to do with the FACT that environmental factors influence evolution. To say otherwise shows complete ignorance to evolution.

 

[percysunshine]

Science is an empirically based method which can neither prove, nor disprove, the tenets of politics, religion, or social mores. It is a unique epistimology.

Someone write that down before I forget it...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The typical mistake made by those who don’t understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that the Earth is constantly changing, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution.

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

You gave me a link to another discussion thread on yahoo, as if this is a credible source and is supposed to demonstrate a single thing?!! What is wrong with your head?

No one here is arguing for Lamarckian evolution, you dumbfuck. So stop mentioning his name. It doesn't mean he got everything wrong, and I don't know what his ideas have to do with the FACT that environmental factors influence evolution. To say otherwise shows complete ignorance to evolution.

I explain things to you…now see if you can understand this….for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well.

Do you realize, when you post, amoebas slap their foreheads with their pseudopods!!!


And they'd roll their eyes if they had any!!


When you fill out your tax returns, under ‘occupation,’ be sure to write “Jay Leno punch line.”