Blowing Up Darwin

[Leo123]

How do you know that?

You can't know that, there's no way you could tell.

How would you tell?



There's lots of elements we know nothing about.

I just pointed out one of them in the previous post.

It's called a theory for a reason. Otherwise it would be called a fact.

Just because there's missing information doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It just means there's missing information.



Turns out there's lots of molecules that perform the exact same function as FtsZ. I mentioned two of them in the previous post. There are dozens more. Exact sequence doesn't matter, function is what matters. That's part of the beauty of the theory. There are many paths to the same result. One looks at the things that are conserved. That tells us what's important. Eyes are conserved, but retinas are all over the place. Oculomotor muscles are conserved, but gaze is all over the place. Chromosome segregation is conserved, but the molecules that do it are all over the place. Structural support in cells is highly conserved, but the exact nature of the cytoskeleton varies widely. These observations are important. There is no perfect engineering solution, nature tries different things and some of it works and some of it doesn't. If man were meant to fly we would have had wings, right?

OK I may have exaggerated but, how about this? Make a primordial soup, Ensure it is organism free and put it in a sterile enclosure and wait. Will the chemicals in your soup create an organism?

I agree we are talking theory and there is missing information. I would just like to see someone run an experiment as I outlined. Dr. James Tour has some good info. Here's a link to one of his videos. He knows what he is talking about. He goes over his past videos and explains in great detail what has been done and what needs to be done.



"We are clueless on the origin of life"

 

[scruffy]

OK I may have exaggerated but, how about this? Make a primordial soup, Ensure it is organism free and put it in a sterile enclosure and wait. Will the chemicals in your soup create an organism?

I would argue that eventually they will. "Eventually" may be a very long time though, maybe centuries, who knows. Since I'm the impatient type and don't want to sit around and wait, I'd prefer the engineering approach, which is just to synthesize the organism in a lab. This way i have to learn what makes the organism tick, instead of discovering it after the fact (from the fossil record, as it were).

"We are clueless on the origin of life"

But that misses the point. The origin of life is the same as the origin of the universe. Think about it. The definition of what constitutes an organism is very vague. The boundary between what is an organism and what isn't, is almost impossible to define. Most such boundaries are entirely arbitrary. For example, we already discussed one. What if i ask you "what constitutes an organism" and you say "it has to self replicate". Then I can immediately present a hundred examples of organisms that can't self replicate. But they're still organisms, by pretty much anyone's definition (even yours). Mules, are an example. They're clearly organisms, but they can't reproduce. Once we understand that, we can take the example all the way back to a single cell that's clearly alive but can't reproduce. Therefore, self replication can not be considered a defining property of a living organism.

 

[Leo123]

I would argue that eventually they will. "Eventually" may be a very long time though, maybe centuries, who knows. Since I'm the impatient type and don't want to sit around and wait, I'd prefer the engineering approach, which is just to synthesize the organism in a lab. This way i have to learn what makes the organism tick, instead of discovering it after the fact (from the fossil record, as it were).



But that misses the point. The origin of life is the same as the origin of the universe. Think about it. The definition of what constitutes an organism is very vague. The boundary between what is an organism and what isn't, is almost impossible to define. Most such boundaries are entirely arbitrary. For example, we already discussed one. What if i ask you "what constitutes an organism" and you say "it has to self replicate". Then I can immediately present a hundred examples of organisms that can't self replicate. But they're still organisms, by pretty much anyone's definition (even yours). Mules, are an example. They're clearly organisms, but they can't reproduce. Once we understand that, we can take the example all the way back to a single cell that's clearly alive but can't reproduce. Therefore, self replication can not be considered a defining property of a living organism.

Watch the video, Dr. Tour lays out what is required and how far we have gotten which is really nowhere. He explains all the approaches tried so far. Then get back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong again.

See? You couldn't pass a 6th grade science quiz and for sure know less than nothing about this topic.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK I may have exaggerated but, how about this? Make a primordial soup, Ensure it is organism free and put it in a sterile enclosure and wait. Will the chemicals in your soup create an organism?

I agree we are talking theory and there is missing information. I would just like to see someone run an experiment as I outlined. Dr. James Tour has some good info. Here's a link to one of his videos. He knows what he is talking about. He goes over his past videos and explains in great detail what has been done and what needs to be done.



"We are clueless on the origin of life"

Such experiments have never produced a living organism.

One more failure of Darwin' thesis.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

 

[abu afak]

.... Dr. James Tour has some good info. Here's a link to one of his videos. He knows what he is talking about. He goes over his past videos and explains in great detail what has been done and what needs to be done.



"We are clueless on the origin of life"

Wiki:

Opposition to evolution and origin of life studies​

Tour became a born-again Christian in his first year at Syracuse[35] and identifies as a Messianic Jew.[57] Tour signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,[1] a statement issued by the Discovery Institute disputing the scientific consensus on evolution, but, in spite of the Discovery Institute's promotion of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, Tour does not consider himself to be an intelligent design proponent.[58] According to The New Yorker, Tour said his signing of the "Dissent" "reflected only his personal doubts about how random mutation occurs at the molecular level... [and] that, apart from a habit of praying for divine guidance, he feels that religion plays no part in his scientific work."[35]"..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --


"We are Clueless about the Origin of Life" is in No Way proving "GodDidIt." OR YOU SAYING "It is impossible to create it"
You have Impeached Yourself.
YOU are a perfect example of the "God of the Gaps" [Fallacy].
See MY thread below where it explains the logical position "We don't know"/"Know Yet."

And we are not clueless either - see Another of MY threads below re self-replicating 'non-living' chains of molecules I replied to you with.
Elements/molecules have tendencies.
I have tackled every Pillar of this debate/your fallacies which you conspicuously Cannot Post under.

Leo123 is a Refuted Godist who HAS to ignore/can't answer me or post under any of my many previous Topical threads which pre-refute him. So he posts under the OP/Religious Idiot's anti-science thread. The preposterous denying of the very Core of Modern Biology: Darwin's evolution.
Not the same as origin/Abiogenesis IAC!
Darwinism/Evo starts AFTER the first life/spark despite Leo123's fallacious attempt to join them.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

As recent developments have proven that the Democrats/Left has no compunction as far as lies, hoaxes and slander, it is time to highlight their similar attempts at the basis of Western Civilization….religion.
And the use of Darwin’s theory to attack same.

In this thread, an interview that Piers Morgan had with Dr. Stephen Meyer, about the actual science behind Charles Darwin’s theory (spoiler: there is none)​

When it comes to evolution, politics is more prominent than science. And with that in mind, .....a simple rule that will clarify the place Darwin’s Theory holds:
Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

• One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to 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.

• I will provide the interview of Meyer by Piers Morgan…..and quotes from that interview. Meyer provides FACTS. Put aside the Democrat/Liberal/Marxist anti-religion propaganda, and focus on the science that demolishes Darwin’s Theory.
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”
• 
  
• Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”

Why don't you discuss the scientific issues that Darwinian evolution raises rather than conflating it with "politics" which is this country isn't even politics but a spectator sport with personality cults and favorite teams, I wonder when we'll see cheerleaders at party conferences?

Discuss science as science and don't politicize it like some have with climate change and vaccines/autism and other conspiracy fantasies.

Nature itself is apolitical, let's keep it that way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't you discuss the scientific issues that Darwinian evolution raises rather than conflating it with "politics" which is this country isn't even politics but a spectator sport with personality cults and favorite teams, I wonder when we'll see cheerleaders at party conferences?

Discuss science as science and don't politicize it like some have with climate change and vaccines/autism and other conspiracy fantasies.

Nature itself is apolitical, let's keep it that way.

Why don't you read the thread, specifically my posts, and you will find exactly that.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why don't you read the thread, specifically my posts, and you will find exactly that.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

You began the thread by saying:

the Democrats/Left has no compunction as far as lies, hoaxes and slander

So do you want to discuss "politics" or science or both?

Those who embrace Darwinism and those who are skeptical of it, cross all manner of political ideologies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You began the thread by saying:

So do you want to discuss "politics" or science or both?

Those who embrace Darwinism and those who are skeptical of it, cross all manner of political ideologies.

I do things my way.

You can read the thread, or leave.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...some hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s work suggested that we could explain the diversity of life without recourse to God, yet not even one example, in nature or in the laboratory, has documented a single organism ‘evolving’ into an entirely new species. And that’s with more scientists at work today than in the totality of history!

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

 

[abu afak]

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.
• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

Again: Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' (only math can in the absolute sense) it deals in theories validated over time.
In 160 Years and an explosion of new sciences, Nothing Contradicts it AND all relevant ones help Affirm it: Radiocarbon dating, DNA, millions of new fossil finds, etc.
And of course, Evolution has overwhelming EVIDENCE, God/s have NONE.
PoliticalSheik is Disingenuous, Non-conversant, and just repeating (4 on this page) an answered Losing post.

Scientific American
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
"1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin seemed to hold so much promise for atheists. It appears to no longer be the case among those who understand physiology and genetics.
“Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source of plant and animal cells, were once independent bacterial cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.”

At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she
says, “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin—having mistaken him…. Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk.” Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” chapter two.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Blowing Up Darwin
SUBTOPIC: Faith-Based 'vs' Scientific Evaluation
⁜→ [COLOR=rgb(247, 218, 100)]PoliticalChic[/COLOR],, [COLOR=rgb(247, 218, 100)]abu afak[/COLOR]ket al,

(PREFACE)

Basing an argument supporting "Creationism" is (essentially) the same as establishing a background foundation for the belief in the existence of The "First Cause," the "Creator," the "Ultimate Intelligent Power of the Universe," the "Supreme Being," or some other supernatural entity.

Basing an argument supporting Life on the foundation of the scientific method

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.

(COMMENT)

The faith-based system of creationist beliefs, taken to its logical extreme, suggests that some form of power (maybe even magic) can manipulate the laws of the universe (whatever the end solution may be).

The scientific method does not dispute that possibility, and it does not argue against faith-based systems of beliefs (however many belief systems may exist today).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abu afak]

RE: Blowing Up Darwin
SUBTOPIC: Faith-Based 'vs' Scientific Evaluation
⁜→ [COLOR=rgb(247, 218, 100)]PoliticalChic[/COLOR],, [COLOR=rgb(247, 218, 100)]abu afak[/COLOR]ket al,

(PREFACE)

Basing an argument supporting "Creationism" is (essentially) the same as establishing a background foundation for the belief in the existence of The "First Cause," the "Creator," the "Ultimate Intelligent Power of the Universe," the "Supreme Being," or some other supernatural entity.

Basing an argument supporting Life on the foundation of the scientific method


(COMMENT)

The faith-based system of creationist beliefs, taken to its logical extreme, suggests that some form of power (maybe even magic) can manipulate the laws of the universe (whatever the end solution may be).

The scientific method does not dispute that possibility, and it does not argue against faith-based systems of beliefs (however many belief systems may exist today).

Most Respectfully,
R

One can speculate all one likes about creation/'first cause' ("God of the Gaps,") but we just don't know/know yet.

One however is denying overwhelming Evidence/FACTS if one denies Darwin/Evolution as the Dishonest Evangelist OP does regularly. Note the BS thread title.

As said many times, Darwin/Evo does not depend on abiogenesis, it starts after and it is a Fact.
PoliticalSchit lies and misleads. (One of the Brooklyn Cults like 7-11 Adventits no doubt.)
She is a biblical Genesis Literalist. Scientifically indefensible.

You gave 'likes' to her Misleading/lying posts.

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin himself made the essential argument AGAINST Darwin's own theory......and his statements still apply, a century and a half later.



Darwin's theory is 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. He admits that the fossil record shows sudden fully formed new species, without intermediate forms.

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302



Darwin continues:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine



“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”




“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski



Why, and to whom, is it so very important to estable Darwin's theory?
Think about that question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can speculate all one likes about creation/'first cause' ("God of the Gaps,") but we just don't know/know yet.

One however is denying overwhelming Evidence/FACTS if one denies Darwin/Evolution as the Dishonest Evangelist OP does regularly. Note the BS thread title.

As said many times, Darwin/Evo does not depend on abiogenesis, it starts after and it is a Fact.
PoliticalSchit lies and misleads. (One of the Brooklyn Cults like 7-11 Adventits no doubt.)
She is a biblical Genesis Literalist. Scientifically indefensible.

You gave 'likes' to her Misleading/lying posts.

`

It is not my argument, you dunce.....it is Dawin's.

Darwin continues:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine



“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”




And why have you been so eaily duped????


Is it because you are a moron?????

 

[Leo123]

Such experiments have never produced a living organism.

One more failure of Darwin' thesis.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

Not even Darwin addressed the origin of life. The video from Dr. Tour tells the real truth that abiogenesis is false.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can speculate all one likes about creation/'first cause' ("God of the Gaps,") but we just don't know/know yet.

One however is denying overwhelming Evidence/FACTS if one denies Darwin/Evolution as the Dishonest Evangelist OP does regularly. Note the BS thread title.

As said many times, Darwin/Evo does not depend on abiogenesis, it starts after and it is a Fact.
PoliticalSchit lies and misleads. (One of the Brooklyn Cults like 7-11 Adventits no doubt.)
She is a biblical Genesis Literalist. Scientifically indefensible.

You gave 'likes' to her Misleading/lying posts.

`

It is not my argument, you dunce.....it is Dawin's.

Darwin continues:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine



“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”




And why have you been so eaily duped????


Is it because you are a moron?????

Not even Darwin addressed the origin of life. The video from Dr. Tour tells the real truth that abiogenesis is false.

And Darwin there was no proof in the fossil record.......and there still isn't!

And......
...today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions. Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools...

Organisms, new species, with new designs, that have no precursors......

 

[abu afak]

It is not my argument, you dunce.....it is Dawin's.

Darwin continues:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine



“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”




And why have you been so eaily duped????


Is it because you are a moron?????

It is not my argument, you dunce.....it is Dawin's.

Darwin continues:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine



“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”




And why have you been so eaily duped????


Is it because you are a moron?????

And Darwin there was no proof in the fossil record.......and there still isn't!

And......
...today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions. Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools...

Organisms, new species, with new designs, that have no precursors......

It is not my argument, you dunce.....it is Dawin's.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine



“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”




And why have you been so eaily duped????


Is it because you are a moron?????

I didn't say he didn't say it, just that's it's Quote Mining/Out OF CONTEXT.
See the OP.
It's obviously not a paragraph.
You Plagiarized one liners from some Creationist site you LYING Cultist.

And of course when Evolution was NEW there was no extensive fossil record WE DO HAVE NOW.
Hundreds/thousands of extinct "Tweeners" found as ONLY Evolution would/did predict.

Intermediate Fossils are about THEE best (and ongoing) case/Evidence for Evo you F****** Dope/$5 street vermin.

You can't debate me you Cross-F***** cultist!

`