25 Pages of Quotes By Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[Dagosa]

You are a sickening individual whose tripe should not be read by anyone except one of your fellow Leftist atheist, but I repeat myself.

Ciao brutto
You really belong on my Ignore List for such as that, which I reported to the useless management here

And you are buffoon.

 

[Moonglow]

Moderator tells me I must edit the opening post but provides no link or method by which I can edit it as requested. Let's cooperate, shall we? The thoughts of pages and pages of scientists confirm my observations and scientific opinions. That should be glaringly obvious.

How primitive Darwinists can cling to "A>B>C>D" nonsense prattled by bitter atheists like Richard Dawkins escapes me. He can't even have his ugly teeth fixed with all his millions earned by selling books full of lies.

Darwin doubted Darwinism also.

 

[Dagosa]

Little Girl Hollie has been following me wherever I go for a long time. Why?
Purely to harass and whine and snivel with her vapid anti-science comments.
I posit science and she follows up with nothing worth reading.

My earlier challenges to Little Girl Hollie have been ignored. I challenged her to write some original science from her own body of knowledge so that everyone could "learn" from her.
Nothing, as expected.

I wrote a book. It is Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life. It is scientific.
You can read reviews on Amazon.com, including a pathologist who described it as "beyond outstanding."
Hollie writes emotional little whines devoid of information.

In your dreams. These threads are the highlight of your life. In the real world, No oneb
gives a shit about you.

 

[Libby von H]

You suggest your conclusion to my preliminary observation and then arrive at your absurd conclusion and wish to pin your nonsense on me? I do indeed have great recommendations from medical doctors and dentists, well above you in education and income.

You said what I wanted you to say, that normal foolish regular people just ain't got the brains and education to see that you just can't question evoluton. Misson Accomplished

 

[ReinyDays]

You are a sickening individual whose tripe should not be read by anyone except one of your fellow Leftist atheist, but I repeat myself.

That's not a very Christian thing to post ... sir ... do you know nothing of God's plans for us on Earth? ... here's a hint, we're NOT supposed to chase people away from the loving embrace of our Lord ...

"Blessed are the peacemakers" is a command ... not an opinion ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

You said what I wanted you to say, that normal foolish regular people just ain't got the brains and education to see that you just can't question evoluton. Misson Accomplished

You are obviously a normal, foolish regular person. Nowhere did i say or infer that certain people "can't question evoluton (sic)."

Anyone can understand the facts which are that evolution is wishful thinking proposed by a mediocre old man who had no concept of the insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis. You have no "mission" you accomplished nothing except to demonstrate silliness.

 

[Hollie]

You are obviously a normal, foolish regular person. Nowhere did i say or infer that certain people "can't question evoluton (sic)."

Anyone can understand the facts which are that evolution is wishful thinking proposed by a mediocre old man who had no concept of the insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis. You have no "mission" you accomplished nothing except to demonstrate silliness.

On the other hand, anyone can understand that the religious extremist is ignorant of the biological sciences and uses his extremism to bolster his ignorance. ID'iot creationerism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a detailed explanation that is supported with physical evidence and experimental support. ID'iot creationism is not a scientific theory, detailed or otherwise, and offers no physical evidence or experimental support.

The only thing you have made a convincing argument for is your complete ignorance of the subject.

Much of what Darwin proposed still holds true. But it was incomplete. He knew nothing of genetics. The current state of evolutionary theory is commonly called "Neo-Darwinism" and is the synthesis of many scientific fields.

Your science-illiterate tirades are an example the fallacious thinking that inundates ID'iot creationism and other anti-science religious extremism.

 

[Dagosa]

You are obviously a normal, foolish regular person. Nowhere did i say or infer that certain people "can't question evoluton (sic)."

Anyone can understand the facts which are that evolution is wishful thinking proposed by a mediocre old man who had no concept of the insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis. You have no "mission" you accomplished nothing except to demonstrate silliness.

Said the guy who thinks chemical engineering can be understood without the periodic table.

 

[Rigby5]

Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.

Wrong.
Pasteur only proved that spontaneous generation was so rare as to not happen in a single life time.

 

[Rigby5]

Evolution really doesn't explain things tho.

Yes it does.
Evolution explains how complexity can be added by random trial and error.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes it does.
Evolution explains how complexity can be added by random trial and error.

Except that evolution is effectively impossible.

Scientists love to say words to the effect that, "In spite of the overwhelming odds and hurdles against it, evolution did happen." What they fail to explain are those odds and hurdles and how evolution overcame them. We're still waiting.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.
Pasteur only proved that spontaneous generation was so rare as to not happen in a single life time.

Even less. The five or six days he had the lid on the jar.

Lamarck was right in a lot of ways too. The creationists seem to have forgotten about him.

 

[scruffy]

Yes it does.
Evolution explains how complexity can be added by random trial and error.

Agreed. Biological evolution shows that complexity is an inevitable result of the fundamental physical symmetries.

If you don't know what those are, I suggest you find out.

They go by names like SU(3), SO(2), and so on.

 

[scruffy]

Except that evolution is effectively impossible.

Horseshit.

You dumb bastards are LOOKING at it, and you're telling me it's impossible.

That's pretty goddamn dumb, dontcha think?

You should be asking HOW is it possible, instead of making idiotic assertions you can't support.

 

[scruffy]

The insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis.

And I will repeat, that you know "not a fucking thing" about stochastic processes and you're in no position to make such ridiculous sweeping statements.

Quit while you can still claim to be ahead, because I'm about to debunk your ridiculous bullshit once and for all.

And you'll bitch and moan about it like a good little creationist, but it won't matter. You're an arrogant little fuck who thinks he knows more than God, and I'm here to tell you in no uncertain terms:

You are wrong.

 

[scruffy]

The real and true history of synthetic life forms

Preface: you should know about the J Craig Venter Institute and what they do.

Truth: a fully complete artificial and synthetic life form was created in the laboratory by scientists from raw materials in 2008. It is called Mycoplasma Laboratorium. It was one of the major successes of the "Minimal Genome Project".

Work on this effort began in the 60's, at NASA. The principals were Harold J Morowitz, Mark Tourtellotte, and DC Wallace.

Two years later in 2010, there was another fully artificial and hitherto unknown version of Mycoplasma Mycoides (ie an entirely new species not found in nature) synthesized in the laboratory from raw components. The principals were Hamilton Smith and Clyde Hutchison. Here is a picture of the fully artificial fully synthetic life form they created from scratch:

This work is already FIFTEEN YEARS OLD.

You can Google the J Craig Venter web page to find out what they're up to now.

Subsequently then, the scientists attempted to EVOLVE the minimal cell, and studied it's mutation in considerable detail. These were the results:

Evolution of a minimal cell - Nature

An engineered minimal cell evolves to escape the negative consequences of genome streamlining.

www.nature.com

The DNA for this brand new artificial species, was created in "cassettes" of 1080 base pairs each, where the 80 overlap. The entire genome was assembled in vitro and then transferred into a membrane shell, and subsequently the new organism was able to immediately reproduce.

Since the initial success in 2008, twenty three brand new artificial life forms have been created, none of which were previously found in nature.

Minimal genome - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[scruffy]

For the self-described chemical engineer:

I scoff at your limitations.

For everything you think is "impossible", I can show you an enzyme that will make it happen - with a probability of up to thirty orders of magnitude greater than the native aqueous rate.

My enzymes are INFINITELY superior to your imaginary constraints.

God knows no constraints, jughead. He designs things that work, with or without your denials.

And if your faith happens to be buried in a 3000 year old book, all I can say is "welcome to the 21st century". We are created in the image of God, which means we will be creating sophisticated life forms. Within MY lifetime, probably. If you believe your book, it says very literally, "we" are gods. It says it half a dozen times, in half a dozen different places, and several different ways. Psalm 82, is one of them.

What can I say, you either believe or you don't. Look around, what do you see? Do you believe your own lying eyes? Man is creating artificial life in the laboratory, it's happening right now today. We already know which genes are essential for certain kinds of life. We can already make them, modify them, and move them into and out of a micelle. Right now we can do it for yeast-like entities and some gram negative bacteria. It's only a matter of time till we can do it for human beings.

How do enzymes speed up chemical reactions? - Futurum

Professor Judith Klinman is exploring the factors that enable enzymes’ remarkably fast catalytic rates

futurumcareers.com

 

[scruffy]

Said the guy who thinks chemical engineering can be understood without the periodic table.

Cats need taurine, dogs don't.

Cats need arachidonic acid, dogs don't.

Why?

Cats are obligate carnivores, whereas dogs like fiber. Their enzymes are different. Some of them, not by much, just a few base pairs/aa's - but it makes the difference between sufficiency and mandatory consumption.

 

[Woodznutz]

Horseshit.

You dumb bastards are LOOKING at it, and you're telling me it's impossible.

That's pretty goddamn dumb, dontcha think?

You should be asking HOW is it possible, instead of making idiotic assertions you can't support.

I asked HOW and came up empty.

 

[Woodznutz]

Cats need taurine, dogs don't.

Cats need arachidonic acid, dogs don't.

Why?

Cats are obligate carnivores, whereas dogs like fiber. Their enzymes are different. Some of them, not by much, just a few base pairs/aa's - but it makes the difference between sufficiency and mandatory consumption.

View attachment 878808

Diagram of a scientific rabbit hole.