The more I learn...

[flacaltenn]

This attack by the secular left only serves to bolster my view that THEY are a bigger danger to knowledge and science than the "enemies" they pursue..

Can not think of a bigger waste of time than trying to defend 200 yr old science in the face of spectacular modern revision.. They are more dogmatic than MOST of the religious folks I know and support..

 

[abu afak]

This attack by the secular left only serves to bolster my view that THEY are a bigger danger to knowledge and science than the "enemies" they pursue..

By the 'Secular Left' you obviously/UNwittingly mean people Not hindered by your view, the Bible/Mythology-Based Right.
What an Obtuse and Unwittingly transparent Admission of Religious based NON-objectivity.
And of course, while I am secular/unhindered-by-mythology, I'm not 'left'.
You're just showing your low IQ 'boogie-man' mentality.

Can not think of a bigger waste of time than trying to defend 200 yr old science in the face of spectacular modern revision.. They are more dogmatic than MOST of the religious folks I know and support..

There is No "spectacular modern revision".
Life adapted/still adapts to it's surroundings. 1+ Billion years and counting/More documented every day.
I posted a Gould article (who made the Punctuated Equlibrium [not really] "spectacular revision") stating Darwin is, of course, Still 100% Correct in his original theory/FACT and was remarkably discerning in stating it.

Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' came out just over 150 Years ago (NOT massaged '200') and Newton's Gravity 325 Years ago.
BOTH Still Stand true: Evolution in fact, held up at least as well.
Every new science that has emerged that could refute Evolution (Isotopic dating, DNA Regression analysis, etc) have only served to Confirm it.

In FACT, I can't think of a "bigger waste of time" than trying to Discredit Darwin, except admitting you're a Genesis Goon while doing so.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Please guide me to the Chapter of "Origin of the Species" that discusses the role of transposons or the significance of gene activation methods. Or the potential ability to produce a new species in a matter of days in the laboratory..

Also give me the Darwin quote that discusses the role of Cosmic Radiation a potentially more powerful evolutionary mechanism than natural selection..

Problem is (as Q.W. already observed) --- there's so much you DON'T know.. It's no wonder your focus is on using Darwin as a scimatar to slay your enemies..

BTW -- you're talking to a non-religious, but spiritual person who DOESN'T hold a grudge against people of faith.. So cut the crap about MY baggage.. YOUR BAGGAGE is CLEARLY on display...

 

[abu afak]

Please guide me to the Chapter of "Origin of the Species" that discusses the role of transposons or the significance of gene activation methods. Or the potential ability to produce a new species in a matter of days in the laboratory..
Also give me the Darwin quote that discusses the role of Cosmic Radiation a potentially more powerful evolutionary mechanism than natural selection..
Problem is (as Q.W. already observed) --- there's so much you DON'T know.. It's no wonder your focus is on using Darwin as a scimatar to slay your enemies..

Oh that's such apparently Dazzling new tech!
But we both know it's BS and does NOT Discredit Darwin's evolution in any way.

And I've already answered it MORE than once.
Alas, we gotta Kwush it again.
We're talking 'Mechanisms' above. Something Darwin knew, and I have reiterated Gould elaborating, was not fully understood then [Now Either!] even though the Principle remains solid and timeless.
Newton is solid as well, despite subsequent bigger dents.
The only difference in criticism level, As I've pointed out, is Gravity doesn't offend God-ists.. or apparently 'spiritualists'.

Once AGAIN for everyone else to see your Disingenuity

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

"..Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.".."

So No one ever Claimed mastery of Mechanism, including Gould 150 years later.
Darwin's evolution was/is still Brilliant, Solid, Timeless.

The above post of yours is just another inane "Irradiated Fruit fly" to fallaciously claim Darwin is wrong/outdated because he couldn't know all the mechanisms at the time... But he NEVER CLAIMED that.

So here we are again with you Last-wording with the same hocus pocus new tech/mechanism/irradiated-fruit-flies I showed was BS days ago:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/327856-the-more-i-learn-2.html#post8269457
and you did NOT answer then.
Conspicuously and Dishonestly leaving out 2, 3, 4, from your answer:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/327856-the-more-i-learn-2.html#post8271436
which merely addressed the secular issue while avoiding/Deflecting the same beating you're taking now/again on new mechanisms. (irradiated fruit flies, other human Manipulation, etc)
Which does NOT effect Darwinian evolution principle/theory at all.

So Why are we doing this again?
Because you fancy yourself clever enough to baffle-em-with-BS.. but... you just Ain't.

BTW -- you're talking to a non-religious, but spiritual person who DOESN'T hold a grudge against people of faith.. So cut the crap about MY baggage.. YOUR BAGGAGE is CLEARLY on display...

And of course you were Wrong about 'secular left' or left anything.
If you have a problem with 'secularism' that would be irrelevant to a logical discussion on evo.
If one was Not secular and had Genesis to defend, that WOULD be an issue in an evolution debate.
Or perhaps dissing Darwin just leaves a little more elbow room for your admitted 'spirituality'.
`