Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.
Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.
"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?
Great.
My point exactly.
OK....lets startGolly gee PC that is a tough oneWell, fellow posters
It's another Sunday morning and Political Chic s bored
So why not just start another "Darwin is a fake" thread and see how may liberals she can piss off
It goes like this:
1. Make a bizarre claim
2. Support your clam with tedious cut and paste that in no way supports your claim
3. Watch as liberals refute the OP claim with supporting documentation
4. Respond with more unrelated cut and paste
5. When more evidence is provided.....resort to childish taunts
5. Giggle over how smart you are
1. Find out the meaning of 'bizarre' before you proceed.
2. I only provide links that support well thought out 'claims.'
Your vapid post really means: "I disagree with the OP, but can't come up with any way to dispute it."
But, we've both proven that you are a moron.
Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution and refutes the theory that god created everything at once
Then you can look at biological evidence on the interrelationship of species. Then geologic evidence of strata and fossil records at each level. Then look at recent DNA evidence
Or else you can reply with childlike taunts and more unrelated cut and pastes
"...Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution..."
Begin when you are ready.
1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment
No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.
I can help you.
Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!
4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
Strange, huh?
Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???
So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!
5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.
In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment
No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.
I can help you.
Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!
4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
Strange, huh?
Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???
So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!
5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.
In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.
Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.
"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?
Great.
My point exactly.
Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.
That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.
OK....lets startGolly gee PC that is a tough oneWell, fellow posters
It's another Sunday morning and Political Chic s bored
So why not just start another "Darwin is a fake" thread and see how may liberals she can piss off
It goes like this:
1. Make a bizarre claim
2. Support your clam with tedious cut and paste that in no way supports your claim
3. Watch as liberals refute the OP claim with supporting documentation
4. Respond with more unrelated cut and paste
5. When more evidence is provided.....resort to childish taunts
5. Giggle over how smart you are
1. Find out the meaning of 'bizarre' before you proceed.
2. I only provide links that support well thought out 'claims.'
Your vapid post really means: "I disagree with the OP, but can't come up with any way to dispute it."
But, we've both proven that you are a moron.
Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution and refutes the theory that god created everything at once
Then you can look at biological evidence on the interrelationship of species. Then geologic evidence of strata and fossil records at each level. Then look at recent DNA evidence
Or else you can reply with childlike taunts and more unrelated cut and pastes
"...Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution..."
Begin when you are ready.
How is it that geologic evidence shows strata on various levels with INCREASING complexity of species? Why are there no dinosaur bones mixed in with simple invertebrates at those levels?
Why are we able to identify different eras of evolution and the complexity of species that existed
1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment
No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.
I can help you.
Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!
4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
Strange, huh?
Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???
So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!
5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.
In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
not at all exciting------does not disprove the BASIC
theory ---or even DISPUTE IT------kinda just adds a
few vignettes and sidetracks.
1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment
No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.
I can help you.
Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!
4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
Strange, huh?
Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???
So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!
5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.
In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?
How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?
Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.
Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.
Oh, I get it...."a missing link"OK....lets startGolly gee PC that is a tough oneWell, fellow posters
It's another Sunday morning and Political Chic s bored
So why not just start another "Darwin is a fake" thread and see how may liberals she can piss off
It goes like this:
1. Make a bizarre claim
2. Support your clam with tedious cut and paste that in no way supports your claim
3. Watch as liberals refute the OP claim with supporting documentation
4. Respond with more unrelated cut and paste
5. When more evidence is provided.....resort to childish taunts
5. Giggle over how smart you are
1. Find out the meaning of 'bizarre' before you proceed.
2. I only provide links that support well thought out 'claims.'
Your vapid post really means: "I disagree with the OP, but can't come up with any way to dispute it."
But, we've both proven that you are a moron.
Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution and refutes the theory that god created everything at once
Then you can look at biological evidence on the interrelationship of species. Then geologic evidence of strata and fossil records at each level. Then look at recent DNA evidence
Or else you can reply with childlike taunts and more unrelated cut and pastes
"...Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution..."
Begin when you are ready.
How is it that geologic evidence shows strata on various levels with INCREASING complexity of species? Why are there no dinosaur bones mixed in with simple invertebrates at those levels?
Why are we able to identify different eras of evolution and the complexity of species that existed
OK...let's start: you're admitting zero knowledge of the subject.
Excellent.
1. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.
a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.
b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.
c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail January 2013
Oh, I get it...."a missing link"OK....lets startGolly gee PC that is a tough one1. Find out the meaning of 'bizarre' before you proceed.
2. I only provide links that support well thought out 'claims.'
Your vapid post really means: "I disagree with the OP, but can't come up with any way to dispute it."
But, we've both proven that you are a moron.
Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution and refutes the theory that god created everything at once
Then you can look at biological evidence on the interrelationship of species. Then geologic evidence of strata and fossil records at each level. Then look at recent DNA evidence
Or else you can reply with childlike taunts and more unrelated cut and pastes
"...Why don't you start with the fossil record does support evolution..."
Begin when you are ready.
How is it that geologic evidence shows strata on various levels with INCREASING complexity of species? Why are there no dinosaur bones mixed in with simple invertebrates at those levels?
Why are we able to identify different eras of evolution and the complexity of species that existed
OK...let's start: you're admitting zero knowledge of the subject.
Excellent.
1. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.
a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.
b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.
c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail January 2013
There are thousands of examples of missing links containing characteristics of two species
It s highly possible that more complex species evolved and then died out
Now.....you explain why there are no dinosaur bones mixed in with strata containing simple vertebrates and invertebrates
I know right?1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment
No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.
I can help you.
Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!
4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
Strange, huh?
Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???
So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!
5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.
In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?
How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?
Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.
Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.
The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.
Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.
"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?
Great.
My point exactly.
Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.
That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.
Are you just going to recycle the same goofy "quotes" you have cut and pasted into, what, eight separate threads of edited, parsed and pointless "quotes" you steal from Harun Yahya?1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
Don't make me come down there.that's funny.
the answer: darwin because it's science, unlike religious fanatics.
This is another one of the topics beyond your ken.....
I just posted specifics that counter the Darwin dogma that you subscribe to....and all you can do is post 'is not, is not.'
You seem to understand 'science' to an even lesser degree than you understand 'law.'
I should point out that the 'is not' niche is already occupied by another fool, Hollie, so you need either to become more vehement or move on.
Have a nice day.
The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.
Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.
"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?
Great.
My point exactly.
Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.
That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.
Let's stick to the premise of the OP: Darwin's theory is neither correct, nor the only theory of evolution.
6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "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 thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141
Good one, huh?
How come they teach Darwin in schools.....there's just as much evidence for Crick's theory.
7. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, physicist Victor Stenger introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe."
His effort posits that something comes from nothing....so who needs Darwin's explanation.
Stenger actually suggests this :" If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life."
Talk Reason arguments against creationism intelligent design and religious apologetics
8. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his disdain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws, and endorses Stenger's multiverse idea.
Then Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Have you seen said statistics?
Funny stuff that fake 'scientists' put out.
Funnier yet, what you'll believe.
PC cuts and pastes:
6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "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 thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141
So you're now on to the space alien conspiracy theory thing.
Super.
What's next. Are to going to start "quote-mining" from Alex Jones and supermarket tabloids?
I know right?1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.
Hardly.
There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.
Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.
So....why Darwin?
because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment
No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.
I can help you.
Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!
4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
Strange, huh?
Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???
So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!
5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.
In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?
How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?
Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.
Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.
PC cuts and pastes:
6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "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 thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141
So you're now on to the space alien conspiracy theory thing.
Super.
What's next. Are to going to start "quote-mining" from Alex Jones and supermarket tabloids?
