The Hare-Brained Three-Hop Plot Against Trump

[alang1216]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

…or, the Deep State attack on Trump.
In 9 posts in this thread, the full story of the last three year.



Let’s put it this way: Difference between Watergate and the Obama Spying?
Watergate was a failed attempt by a political party to spy on their political enemies.



1.The Deep State cannot allow an outsider to insinuate his way into their fiefdom, and block their system of spinning straw into gold….the worthless becoming millionaires. And Trump is the quintessential outsider….even, disrupter.
The exposure of the Biden Crime Family and their selling out our government for beaucoup bucks has revealed how so many politicians go to Washington to do good, and wind up doing well.

Can you say ‘Clintons…’


2.Not only was the Deep State, and everyone associated with it, in a huddle even before Trump was elected…but they were so confident of Hillary’s election, that they didn’t feel the need to hide it.

October 25, 2016...”NYTimes gave Hillary 93% chance of winning the election.”
2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President?


Schumer Warns Trump: Intel Community Has Many Ways to 'Get Back at You'





“Devin Nunes: Peter Strzok's 'insurance policy' was about getting into Trump campaign emails “A text message sent by former FBI agent Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, a former FBI lawyer with whom Strzok was having an affair, in August 2016 that mentioned an "insurance policy" has long been a subject of concern among Republican investigators who believe there could have been a plot to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump.”
Devin Nunes: Peter Strzok's 'insurance policy' was about getting into Trump campaign emails




3. Hop #1
This was the plan….and mighty successful it was.

First, pick a target. Trump had several unknowns who gravitated to his campaign and the one they picked was Carter Page. Page had some legit business with Russians, and the Deep State think tank needed to use that Russian connection, no matter how peripheral, to hand around Trump’s neck.

Two considerations: 1) Page was squeaky clean, and had even worked for one of the agencies providing info on Russia to our government, and 2) the need for the cover of a warrant.


Next… how easily both considerations were covered.

Translation. Another pack of lies.

There is no deep state. You couldn't sell that in a James Bond picture. Yet Trump supporters have no problems with it as it allows you people to ignore reality. That all of Trump's problems are self-inflicted.

There is no Biden crime family. Trump has used his Presidency to line his pockets. His Presidency and his businesses are fused together into a money making enterprise.

There was no insurance policy. Strzok was clearly joking. You ignore the fact that Strzok also supported re-opening the investigation into Clinton's e-mails the few weeks before the election. He was hardly a partisan.

There is a huge problem with Page. He was not connected with the Trump campaign when they sought the warrant to monitor Page. Page had extensive ties to Russia.

"There is no Biden crime family."

"Hunter Biden 'was paid $83,333 a month by Ukrainian gas company to be a "ceremonial figure" with a "powerful name" while his firm got a total of $3.4million'

• Son of former Vice President Joe Biden was viewed as 'helpful non-executive director' by Ukrainian gas firm Burisma
• Hunter Biden, 49, began receiving monthly payments of $83,333 beginning in April 2014 for an 18-month period from the company
• Biden was part of a consulting firm run by Devon Archer, his business associate, which received $3.4million from Burisma during that period
• People familiar with the arrangement say that Hunter Biden never visited Ukraine during the period he was paid by Burisma
• President Trump and his supporters have alleged Burisma's arrangement with Hunter Biden was corrupt and illegal, though no evidence of this has emerged "

Hunter Biden 'was paid $83,333 a month by Ukrainian gas company to be a "ceremonial figure"' | Daily Mail Online

 

[PoliticalChic]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.


The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "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.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

… And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no


Dedicated to Hunter Biden, I guess...

 

[alang1216]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.


The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "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.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

Let me try to explain in unscientific terms using small words. Maybe even someone with little understanding of science might be able to follow.

There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT. The second part of the theory are the mechanisms that fueled the descent. Darwin posed a very simple mechanism but I never defended that mechanism (the reality is probably much more complex). If you had read my posts carefully you'd have known that I never mentioned Darwin, only descent from a common ancestor. I will defend the fact of descent from a common ancestor but not the work a scientist that did his work 150 years ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.


The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "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.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

Let me try to explain in unscientific terms using small words. Maybe even someone with little understanding of science might be able to follow.

There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT. The second part of the theory are the mechanisms that fueled the descent. Darwin posed a very simple mechanism but I never defended that mechanism (the reality is probably much more complex). If you had read my posts carefully you'd have known that I never mentioned Darwin, only descent from a common ancestor. I will defend the fact of descent from a common ancestor but not the work a scientist that did his work 150 years ago.

"There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT."

Really?

Have any experimental data to support that?

No?



Several recognized scientists claim that life began from 'space garbage.'

You probably never heard of Watson and Crick, discovered the structure of DNA....heard of DNA????
Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine] Crick, p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," 53 Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144

The main difference would be that microorganisms should appear here suddenly, without any evidence for prebiotic systems or very primitive organisms... Now, it is perhaps remarkable that these are all features of the early fossil record... 54p. 144

He concludes, "Thus, at the very least one can say that this evidence does not contradict Directed Panspermia but supports it to some extent." 55p.145

The latest update

Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself." 56 Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene. Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109

Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:

We saw there that intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done. 57[emphasis mine]p.111



Amazing how little you know, isn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.


The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "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.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

Let me try to explain in unscientific terms using small words. Maybe even someone with little understanding of science might be able to follow.

There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT. The second part of the theory are the mechanisms that fueled the descent. Darwin posed a very simple mechanism but I never defended that mechanism (the reality is probably much more complex). If you had read my posts carefully you'd have known that I never mentioned Darwin, only descent from a common ancestor. I will defend the fact of descent from a common ancestor but not the work a scientist that did his work 150 years ago.

In 150 years, with more scientists at work than the prior total throughout history....and not a single example of one species evolving into another....

Luckily for the Left that there are dunces like you around to simply say..'Duh....yup...yup....dat's it!'

 

[alang1216]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.


The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "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.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

Let me try to explain in unscientific terms using small words. Maybe even someone with little understanding of science might be able to follow.

There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT. The second part of the theory are the mechanisms that fueled the descent. Darwin posed a very simple mechanism but I never defended that mechanism (the reality is probably much more complex). If you had read my posts carefully you'd have known that I never mentioned Darwin, only descent from a common ancestor. I will defend the fact of descent from a common ancestor but not the work a scientist that did his work 150 years ago.

"There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT."

Really?

Have any experimental data to support that?

No?



Several recognized scientists claim that life began from 'space garbage.'

You probably never heard of Watson and Crick, discovered the structure of DNA....heard of DNA????
Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine] Crick, p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," 53 Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144

The main difference would be that microorganisms should appear here suddenly, without any evidence for prebiotic systems or very primitive organisms... Now, it is perhaps remarkable that these are all features of the early fossil record... 54p. 144

He concludes, "Thus, at the very least one can say that this evidence does not contradict Directed Panspermia but supports it to some extent." 55p.145

The latest update

Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself." 56 Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene. Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109

Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:

We saw there that intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done. 57[emphasis mine]p.111



Amazing how little you know, isn't it?

"Have any experimental data to support that?" Yes, come by and we'll take a ride in my time machine.

'Space garbage'? Really? Have any experimental data to support that?

As for the the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, that is exactly 180 degrees from the truth since every living thing is a transitional form. Transitional between their parents and their children.

 

[alang1216]

In 150 years, with more scientists at work than the prior total throughout history....and not a single example of one species evolving into another....

Luckily for the Left that there are dunces like you around to simply say..'Duh....yup...yup....dat's it!'

Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level. How did the AIDS virus suddenly appear? Space garbage?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It came from a scientific journal.

Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.

On the other hand:

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.​

You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.


The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "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.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

Let me try to explain in unscientific terms using small words. Maybe even someone with little understanding of science might be able to follow.

There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT. The second part of the theory are the mechanisms that fueled the descent. Darwin posed a very simple mechanism but I never defended that mechanism (the reality is probably much more complex). If you had read my posts carefully you'd have known that I never mentioned Darwin, only descent from a common ancestor. I will defend the fact of descent from a common ancestor but not the work a scientist that did his work 150 years ago.

"There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT."

Really?

Have any experimental data to support that?

No?



Several recognized scientists claim that life began from 'space garbage.'

You probably never heard of Watson and Crick, discovered the structure of DNA....heard of DNA????
Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine] Crick, p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," 53 Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144

The main difference would be that microorganisms should appear here suddenly, without any evidence for prebiotic systems or very primitive organisms... Now, it is perhaps remarkable that these are all features of the early fossil record... 54p. 144

He concludes, "Thus, at the very least one can say that this evidence does not contradict Directed Panspermia but supports it to some extent." 55p.145

The latest update

Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself." 56 Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene. Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109

Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:

We saw there that intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done. 57[emphasis mine]p.111



Amazing how little you know, isn't it?

"Have any experimental data to support that?" Yes, come by and we'll take a ride in my time machine.

'Space garbage'? Really? Have any experimental data to support that?

As for the the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, that is exactly 180 degrees from the truth since every living thing is a transitional form. Transitional between their parents and their children.

I posted the conjecture of two noted scientists to compare them with your ......resume.




"As for the the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, that is exactly 180 degrees from the truth since every living thing is a transitional form. Transitional between their parents and their children."

And now we have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an imbecile.

Transitional forms refers to between two different species.

Are you claiming to be a different species from your parents.....let's hope so, for their sake.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 150 years, with more scientists at work than the prior total throughout history....and not a single example of one species evolving into another....

Luckily for the Left that there are dunces like you around to simply say..'Duh....yup...yup....dat's it!'

Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level. How did the AIDS virus suddenly appear? Space garbage?

"Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level."

Is that what Darwin was referring to.....the microscopic level?


So there is no macroevolution?
Excellent.

I believe you've just proven my premise.

 

[alang1216]

"Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level."

Is that what Darwin was referring to.....the microscopic level?

So there is no macroevolution?
Excellent.

I believe you've just proven my premise.

Correct, there is no macroevolution, at least as a scientific concept. Same it true for 'microevolution'. There is only evolution.

The time between generations of microbes is measured in minutes, in contrast to humans where it is measured in decades, so it is not surprising that evolution is easy to observe in microbes as opposed to humans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level."

Is that what Darwin was referring to.....the microscopic level?

So there is no macroevolution?
Excellent.

I believe you've just proven my premise.

Correct, there is no macroevolution, at least as a scientific concept. Same it true for 'microevolution'. There is only evolution.

The time between generations of microbes is measured in minutes, in contrast to humans where it is measured in decades, so it is not surprising that evolution is easy to observe in microbes as opposed to humans.

"Correct, there is no macroevolution,"


Yet that is what Darwin's theory was about....and, earlier, you claimed it was 'proven,' and a 'fact.'


Do the custodians know you've chewed through the restraints again?

 

[alang1216]

Transitional forms refers to between two different species.

It is accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs. What would a transitional form look like?

• Might it have a beak with teeth?
• Might it have a long tail?
• Might it have fingers on it's wings?

 

[alang1216]

"Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level."

Is that what Darwin was referring to.....the microscopic level?

So there is no macroevolution?
Excellent.

I believe you've just proven my premise.

Correct, there is no macroevolution, at least as a scientific concept. Same it true for 'microevolution'. There is only evolution.

The time between generations of microbes is measured in minutes, in contrast to humans where it is measured in decades, so it is not surprising that evolution is easy to observe in microbes as opposed to humans.

"Correct, there is no macroevolution,"


Yet that is what Darwin's theory was about....and, earlier, you claimed it was 'proven,' and a 'fact.'


Do the custodians know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Are you purposely being ignorant or dense? Yet another straw man?

I don't believe Darwin ever talked about any 'macroevolution' so I certainly wouldn't have claimed it was 'proven,' and a 'fact'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Transitional forms refers to between two different species.

It is accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs. What would a transitional form look like?

• Might it have a beak with teeth?
• Might it have a long tail?
• Might it have fingers on it's wings?

Any proof?

Any experimental data?


That's what is great about your posts.....they verify everything I post about Liberals, government school grads, Democrats.

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.

". . . 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.






b. 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 | Biology Direct | Full Text
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. 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).


c. 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 (Signee of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)

d. "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

e. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

f. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)




Be sure to check every link I provided....you dolt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Actually such things happen all the time, just at the microscopic level."

Is that what Darwin was referring to.....the microscopic level?

So there is no macroevolution?
Excellent.

I believe you've just proven my premise.

Correct, there is no macroevolution, at least as a scientific concept. Same it true for 'microevolution'. There is only evolution.

The time between generations of microbes is measured in minutes, in contrast to humans where it is measured in decades, so it is not surprising that evolution is easy to observe in microbes as opposed to humans.

"Correct, there is no macroevolution,"


Yet that is what Darwin's theory was about....and, earlier, you claimed it was 'proven,' and a 'fact.'


Do the custodians know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Are you purposely being ignorant or dense? Yet another straw man?

I don't believe Darwin ever talked about any 'macroevolution' so I certainly wouldn't have claimed it was 'proven,' and a 'fact'.

Gads, you're a moron: that's all he wrote about.

/ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
Learn to pronounce
noun
BIOLOGY

1. major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Has No Remorse For Carter Page

Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson showed no remorse for Carter Page at a recent book promotion event, saying that the former Trump campaign adviser is “not a civil liberties victim” and likely should have been prosecuted during the special counsel’s investigation.

“He’s not a poster child for the evils of government surveillance,” Simpson said at the Jan. 16 event, held at the Washington, D.C. book store Politics and Prose to promote his book, “Crime In Progress.”

Simpson’s remarks suggest he disagrees with the findings of a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Dec. 9 that largely focused on the FBI’s surveillance efforts against Page.

The Justice Department’s inspector general (IG) found that the FBI submitted false and misleading information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in order to obtain wiretap warrants against Page. The Justice Department subsequently deemed two of the four warrants against Page to be invalid. "
Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Has No Remorse For Carter Page




The Deep State plan was to pick a target....Carter Page.....lie about him vis-a-vis Russia, get a warrant to surveil Page....hop #1.....and use that to surveil everyone Page communicated with....hop #2 and so on....up to Trump.

 

[alang1216]

"Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Has No Remorse For Carter Page

Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson showed no remorse for Carter Page at a recent book promotion event, saying that the former Trump campaign adviser is “not a civil liberties victim” and likely should have been prosecuted during the special counsel’s investigation.

“He’s not a poster child for the evils of government surveillance,” Simpson said at the Jan. 16 event, held at the Washington, D.C. book store Politics and Prose to promote his book, “Crime In Progress.”

Simpson’s remarks suggest he disagrees with the findings of a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Dec. 9 that largely focused on the FBI’s surveillance efforts against Page.

The Justice Department’s inspector general (IG) found that the FBI submitted false and misleading information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in order to obtain wiretap warrants against Page. The Justice Department subsequently deemed two of the four warrants against Page to be invalid. "
Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Has No Remorse For Carter Page




The Deep State plan was to pick a target....Carter Page.....lie about him vis-a-vis Russia, get a warrant to surveil Page....hop #1.....and use that to surveil everyone Page communicated with....hop #2 and so on....up to Trump.

The Horowitz report paints a somewhat different picture. Some Wikipedia quotes:

• On December 9, 2019, US Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified to Congress that the FBI showed no political bias at the initiation of the investigation into Trump and possible connections with Russia.
• Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Has No Remorse For Carter Page

Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson showed no remorse for Carter Page at a recent book promotion event, saying that the former Trump campaign adviser is “not a civil liberties victim” and likely should have been prosecuted during the special counsel’s investigation.

“He’s not a poster child for the evils of government surveillance,” Simpson said at the Jan. 16 event, held at the Washington, D.C. book store Politics and Prose to promote his book, “Crime In Progress.”

Simpson’s remarks suggest he disagrees with the findings of a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Dec. 9 that largely focused on the FBI’s surveillance efforts against Page.

The Justice Department’s inspector general (IG) found that the FBI submitted false and misleading information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in order to obtain wiretap warrants against Page. The Justice Department subsequently deemed two of the four warrants against Page to be invalid. "
Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Has No Remorse For Carter Page




The Deep State plan was to pick a target....Carter Page.....lie about him vis-a-vis Russia, get a warrant to surveil Page....hop #1.....and use that to surveil everyone Page communicated with....hop #2 and so on....up to Trump.

The Horowitz report paints a somewhat different picture. Some Wikipedia quotes:

• On December 9, 2019, US Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified to Congress that the FBI showed no political bias at the initiation of the investigation into Trump and possible connections with Russia.
• Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias.