The Biology Term For History

[Indeependent]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

Trust me, this is the internet. I certainly would never make up or pad my resume. Lucky for me, I don't need to.

How to Become an Evolutionary Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap

Prospective students who searched for <u> How to Become an Evolutionary Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap </u> found the articles, information, and resources on this page helpful.

study.com

Does this describe your skillset?

 

[Silver Cat]

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

What about pre-cell life forms and the chemical evolution?

 

[Silver Cat]

A series of random modifications did not produce the advanced forms.

Sure they do. Just google "genetic algorithms".

AI: Genetic Algorithms

 

[Silver Cat]

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

Genetic algorithms are clearly demonstrate that random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. DNA analysis clearly demonstrate us mutations, that were mechanism for speciation in vivo, in vitro et in silico.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

Genetic algorithms are clearly demonstrate that random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. DNA analysis clearly demonstrate us mutations, that were mechanism for speciation in vivo, in vitro et in silico.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times.

"The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms."


Of course it does no such thing.



“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . 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 “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "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)

c. 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.

d. ". . . 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.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ 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 "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

Genetic algorithms are clearly demonstrate that random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. DNA analysis clearly demonstrate us mutations, that were mechanism for speciation in vivo, in vitro et in silico.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times.

"...random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. "

That's a lie.



“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals



“Alterations in the normal recombination pattern are often associated with errors in chromosome segregation in humans, and these errors are a major cause of spontaneous abortions and congenital birth defects, including mental retardation.”
(Go to “Meiotic Recombination Does Not Occur at Random Throughout the Genome”)
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.
pbio.0050333&ct=1&SESSID=a273f04ca1957b1da05dfd35ba0c418a

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

Genetic algorithms are clearly demonstrate that random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. DNA analysis clearly demonstrate us mutations, that were mechanism for speciation in vivo, in vitro et in silico.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times.

"No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times. "


The best you Darwinists can do is lie.

In the century and a half since Darwin’s thesis was published, and with more scientists employed now than in all of the past combined…..no one has proven Darwin’s conjecture.

"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.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

 

[Hollie]

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

Genetic algorithms are clearly demonstrate that random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. DNA analysis clearly demonstrate us mutations, that were mechanism for speciation in vivo, in vitro et in silico.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times.

"No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times. "


The best you Darwinists can do is lie.

In the century and a half since Darwin’s thesis was published, and with more scientists employed now than in all of the past combined…..no one has proven Darwin’s conjecture.

"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.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

The Berlinski and Kenyon "quotes" are ''quotes'' you dump into every thread multiple times.

Disco'tute loons do nothing but offer embarrassing babble.

Encyclopedia of American Loons
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).




Encyclopedia of American Loons
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com
Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.
In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.

Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous

 

[Hollie]

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

The fossil record demonstrate us many intermediate links, predicted by evolution theory as well as many pre-Cambrian life forms.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

Genetic algorithms are clearly demonstrate that random changes with selection could be the mechanism for speciation. DNA analysis clearly demonstrate us mutations, that were mechanism for speciation in vivo, in vitro et in silico.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times.

"No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

Sure, it was observed. Many times. "


The best you Darwinists can do is lie.

In the century and a half since Darwin’s thesis was published, and with more scientists employed now than in all of the past combined…..no one has proven Darwin’s conjecture.

"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.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

1. “variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. You enjoy being publicly humiliated, right?

 

[Hollie]

Observed Speciation

This is a resource page for anyone who engages anti-evolutionists. It is a list I have compiled from the literature of observed speciation, both in the lab and in the wild. It is not by any means complete. There are hundreds more references out there: General 1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: mole...

www.scienceforums.net

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.

34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent

 

[luchitociencia]

Historical reality: Evolution of the sapecies is a fallacy to which corrupt scientists have turned it into a famous fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Historical reality: Evolution of the sapecies is a fallacy to which corrupt scientists have turned it into a famous fraud.

Conspiracy theories make everything so simple.

 

[luchitociencia]

Historical reality: Evolution of the sapecies is a fallacy to which corrupt scientists have turned it into a famous fraud.

Conspiracy theories make everything so simple.

On the contrary. Species at the end of the day solely degenerate. Simple as that.

The whole evolution farce with it's greek/chinese mixing of words like "speciation", makes of the theory the most humorous of the several theoretical frauds in science.

Speciation... ha ha ha ha, hey, hear what I'm telling you, , go back to school and learn proper English... speciation... lol... who invented such a superfluous word? Who was that idiot, if you know?

Do you know why you have made your absurd theory so "complicated" to yourself?

I will tell you. First you can't understand it at all. Second, you don't want others to discover that is pure crap. Third, you invent from your imagination, steps for species which never happened. Fourth, you want to give the idea that "scientific" is synonymous of "complicated". And Fifth, your theory has never ever worked. The fact is that the whole species of the world, at this current moment are WEAKER than their ancestors. Period.

I'm a master, I can dance the Macarena on your silly evolution.

You better climb and ride in my train, because with your theory you are just crawling in mud.

 

[esalla]

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

What about pre-cell life forms and the chemical evolution?

There is no such thing except in the minds of atheist professors

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

What about pre-cell life forms and the chemical evolution?

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Hollie]

Historical reality: Evolution of the sapecies is a fallacy to which corrupt scientists have turned it into a famous fraud.

Conspiracy theories make everything so simple.

On the contrary. Species at the end of the day solely degenerate. Simple as that.

The whole evolution farce with it's greek/chinese mixing of words like "speciation", makes of the theory the most humorous of the several theoretical frauds in science.

Speciation... ha ha ha ha, hey, hear what I'm telling you, , go back to school and learn proper English... speciation... lol... who invented such a superfluous word? Who was that idiot, if you know?

Do you know why you have made your absurd theory so "complicated" to yourself?

I will tell you. First you can't understand it at all. Second, you don't want others to discover that is pure crap. Third, you invent from your imagination, steps for species which never happened. Fourth, you want to give the idea that "scientific" is synonymous of "complicated". And Fifth, your theory has never ever worked. The fact is that the whole species of the world, at this current moment are WEAKER than their ancestors. Period.

I'm a master, I can dance the Macarena on your silly evolution.

You better climb and ride in my train, because with your theory you are just crawling in mud.

That was quite a conspiracy theory drenched rant. Were you expecting anyone to take it seriously?

 

[Silver Cat]

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

What about pre-cell life forms and the chemical evolution?

WTF are you talking about?

For example, about auto-catalytic chemical reactions, like the formose reaction:

Formose reaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And about the conception of RNA-world.

RNA world - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Silver Cat]

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

What about pre-cell life forms and the chemical evolution?

There is no such thing except in the minds of atheist professors

Do you want to say, that the formose reaction does not exist?
Funny. Try to prove it.

 

[esalla]

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

What about pre-cell life forms and the chemical evolution?

There is no such thing except in the minds of atheist professors

Do you want to say, that the formose reaction does not exist?
Funny. Try to prove it.

I am saying that no evidence exist that abiogenesis happens. See kid DNA is not a chemical reaction like when water dissolves limestone. All the chemical reactions in DNA are directed by the DNA code and not atomic bonding's.

Too many have tried to disprove this and all failed

 

[Hollie]

Compare Darwin’s actual writings with current knowledge.



8. Those with a working knowledge of biology will recognize the classifications, kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus and species. Kingdom is the largest grouping, having an array of organisms. For example, the animal kingdom. At the end of the list, with fewer and fewer organism, and fewer and fewer differences between them, one specific species, as, a human being, Homo sapiens.

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram


A very simple test of logic: if Darwin was correct, wouldn’t we find the simplest, least advanced organism at the bottom of any fossil site? The furthest from the top of the deposit????


Any question??? Any dispute of that statement?

Be careful here, Darwinists......you are about to meet your doom.



This is where you Darwinist’s are hoist by your own petards.

That’s all very melodramatic!!!

What do you need help understanding?

Be careful here, fundies. If, as you claim, the planet is only 6,000 years old, there shouldn’t be any fossil remains.

This is where fundies are wedged by their own undies.

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?

Well, what are the odds?

Before you start cruising the fundie christian websites, try thinking this through.

The calculation of odds that routinely appear on fundie websites assumes that the "first'' protein molecule formed by chance. If you had taken even 8th grade biochemistry (and I'm thinking those odds are slim), you would have learned that biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex interactions of complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For one example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life.

As long as we're calculating odds, what are the odds against your gods forming by chance?