Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

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!

`

 

[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.

`

 

[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.""
[......]
`

 

[abu afak]

RE: Blowing Up Darwin
SUBTOPIC: Faith-Based 'vs' Scientific Evaluation
⁜→ @PoliticalChic@,, @abu afakket 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]

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.""
[......]
`

I proved that there is no fossil record proving Darwin's theory.

• 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]

I proved that there is no fossil record proving Darwin's theory.

AI Overview
Learn more

The "fossil record for evo" refers to the collection of fossilized remains of ancient organisms that provides strong evidence for the theory of evolution, demonstrating how life forms have changed over time through the progression of different species in the geological record, showcasing transitions between ancestral and descendant organisms, often including "missing links" called transitional fossils; essentially acting as a historical snapshot of life on Earth across millions of years.

Key points about the fossil record and evolution:

• Evidence for change:
  Fossils show that organisms from the past were different from those alive today, indicating evolution has occurred.
  
  
• Transitional fossils:
  These fossils exhibit characteristics of both an ancestral group and its evolved descendant, providing strong evidence for evolutionary links.
  
  
• Example: Horse evolution:
  The fossil record of horses shows a clear progression from small, multi-toed ancestors to the modern, single-toed horse, illustrating gradual changes over time.
• Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution
  The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past...
  Understanding Evolution
  
  
  
• Evolution and the Fossil Record - Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  
  
  
• Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation | Britannica
  Oct 25, 2024 — Numbered bones in the forefoot illustrations trace the gradual transition from a four-toed to a one-toed animal. The f...

Featured snippet from the web​

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past 3.5 billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and has bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is very, very old and has changed over time through evolution.

Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution​

Understanding Evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu › lines-of-evidence › fossil...

18.5A: The Fossil Record as Evidence for EvolutionBiology LibreTexts​

https://bio.libretexts.org › 18.05:_Evidence_of_Evolution
Nov 23, 2024 — Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; fossils show a progression of evolution.

Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation​

Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Branches of Biology
Oct 25, 2024 — The history of life recorded by fossils presents compelling evidence of evolution. The fossil record is incomplete.

Evolution and the Fossil Record​

Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org › learn › evolut...
The fossil record of the past 6 million years reveals the transition from chimp-like species with smaller average brain sizes to species that are increasingly ..

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

AI Overview
Learn more

The "fossil record for evo" refers to the collection of fossilized remains of ancient organisms that provides strong evidence for the theory of evolution, demonstrating how life forms have changed over time through the progression of different species in the geological record, showcasing transitions between ancestral and descendant organisms, often including "missing links" called transitional fossils; essentially acting as a historical snapshot of life on Earth across millions of years.

Key points about the fossil record and evolution:

• Evidence for change:
  Fossils show that organisms from the past were different from those alive today, indicating evolution has occurred.
  
  
• Transitional fossils:
  These fossils exhibit characteristics of both an ancestral group and its evolved descendant, providing strong evidence for evolutionary links.
  
  
• Example: Horse evolution:
  The fossil record of horses shows a clear progression from small, multi-toed ancestors to the modern, single-toed horse, illustrating gradual changes over time.
• Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution
  The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past...
  Understanding Evolution
  
  
  
• Evolution and the Fossil Record - Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  
  
  
• Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation | Britannica
  Oct 25, 2024 — Numbered bones in the forefoot illustrations trace the gradual transition from a four-toed to a one-toed animal. The f...

Featured snippet from the web​

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past 3.5 billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and has bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is very, very old and has changed over time through evolution.

Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution​

Understanding Evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu › lines-of-evidence › fossil...

18.5A: The Fossil Record as Evidence for EvolutionBiology LibreTexts​

https://bio.libretexts.org › 18.05:_Evidence_of_Evolution
Nov 23, 2024 — Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; fossils show a progression of evolution.

Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation​

Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Branches of Biology
Oct 25, 2024 — The history of life recorded by fossils presents compelling evidence of evolution. The fossil record is incomplete.

Evolution and the Fossil Record​

Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org › learn › evolut...
The fossil record of the past 6 million years reveals the transition from chimp-like species with smaller average brain sizes to species that are increasingly ..

`

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

 

[abu afak]

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

MORE QUOTE MINING.. FROM 75 YEARS AGO!!

From Niles Eldredge, who along with Devout Evolutionist Stephen J Gould, Tweaked Evolution to faster and slower periods with "Punctuated Equilibrium" and of Course is a Believer in Evo.

KWEATIONIST LINK FOR YOUR PLAGIARIZED "quote?"

And you LIED FOR JESUS ldiotically claiming You "proved there was no Fossil Record" you DISHONEST POS, and I showed there is an Extensive Fossil Record.
NO Answer, just a new Lie/quote mine.

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

MORE QUOTE MINING.. FROM 75 YEARS AGO!!

From Niles Eldredge, who along with Devout Evolutionist Stephen J Gould, Tweaked Evolution to faster and slower periods with "Punctuated Equilibrium" and of Course is a Believer in Evo.

KWEATIONIST LINK FOR YOUR PLAGIARIZED "quote?"

And you LIED FOR JESUS ldiotically claiming You "proved there was no Fossil Record" you DISHONEST POS, and I showed there is an Extensive Fossil Record.
NO Answer, just a new Lie/quote mine.

`

• 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????

That's at Least your FIFTH Identical posting , 4 on the last page and answer once by me above on This page already.
You are a Sore-Loser Troll, proselytizing NT Mental case, and a crazy Street person with a keyboard.


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, repeating sore Loser.
She's FAILED JESUS/The Church again.

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.""​

[......]​

`

 

[scruffy]

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

You have that backwards.

"Abio" is false. There's no such thing.

Carbon is one of the most prevalent atoms in the universe. Wherever there's spacetime, there's carbon. And wherever there's carbon, there's life.

There's no such thing as "abio". Bio is part of the fundamental fabric of the universe. The quantum nature of spacetime is programmed for life.

 

[scruffy]

AI Overview
Learn more

The "fossil record for evo" refers to the collection of fossilized remains of ancient organisms that provides strong evidence for the theory of evolution, demonstrating how life forms have changed over time through the progression of different species in the geological record, showcasing transitions between ancestral and descendant organisms, often including "missing links" called transitional fossils; essentially acting as a historical snapshot of life on Earth across millions of years.

Key points about the fossil record and evolution:

• Evidence for change:
  Fossils show that organisms from the past were different from those alive today, indicating evolution has occurred.
  
  
• Transitional fossils:
  These fossils exhibit characteristics of both an ancestral group and its evolved descendant, providing strong evidence for evolutionary links.
  
  
• Example: Horse evolution:
  The fossil record of horses shows a clear progression from small, multi-toed ancestors to the modern, single-toed horse, illustrating gradual changes over time.
• Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution
  The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past...
  Understanding Evolution
  
  
  
• Evolution and the Fossil Record - Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  
  
  
• Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation | Britannica
  Oct 25, 2024 — Numbered bones in the forefoot illustrations trace the gradual transition from a four-toed to a one-toed animal. The f...

Featured snippet from the web​

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past 3.5 billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and has bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is very, very old and has changed over time through evolution.

Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution​

Understanding Evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu › lines-of-evidence › fossil...

18.5A: The Fossil Record as Evidence for EvolutionBiology LibreTexts​

https://bio.libretexts.org › 18.05:_Evidence_of_Evolution
Nov 23, 2024 — Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; fossils show a progression of evolution.

Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation​

Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Branches of Biology
Oct 25, 2024 — The history of life recorded by fossils presents compelling evidence of evolution. The fossil record is incomplete.

Evolution and the Fossil Record​

Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org › learn › evolut...
The fossil record of the past 6 million years reveals the transition from chimp-like species with smaller average brain sizes to species that are increasingly ..

`

Fossils are only one of 18 converging lines of evidence for the theory of evolution.

All things considered, fossils don't mean much.

Evolution is molecular, it has nothing to do with what we see (or don't see).

 

[scruffy]

• 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????

Why do you care about Darwin?

No one cares about Darwin anymore.

You're trying to link Darwin with atheists on the one hand, and leftists on the other.

Neither religion nor politics is science.

And SCIENCE has advanced so far in 200 years that Darwin becomes largely irrelevant. He was an observer, more than a scientist. He observed stuff and wrote about it - but science is something you DO, not something you see.

Science writes equations for kinetics, studies the shapes of molecules, and provides formulas for mutation rates in DNA. All that is a far cry from "survival of the fittest", which was a swag in the first place.

I don't see why anyone cares about Darwin. He's a Boogeyman, nothing more.

 

[scruffy]

• 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.”

This is a perfect example of dysfunctional logic.

This person obviously knows nothing about Hox genes and Tbox transcription factors.

Yet tries to draw an illogical conclusion from a position of ignorance.

Scientists are way ahead of this argument. Did you know that snakes used to have limbs? And now they don't. True fact. And yet snake genomes still contain all the highly conserved regions for limb development.

 

[abu afak]

...Scientists are way ahead of this argument. Did you know that snakes used to have limbs? And now they don't. True fact. And yet snake genomes still contain all the highly conserved regions for limb development.

Why do you care about Darwin?

No one cares about Darwin anymore.

You're trying to link Darwin with atheists on the one hand, and leftists on the other.

Neither religion nor politics is science.

And SCIENCE has advanced so far in 200 years that Darwin becomes largely irrelevant. He was an observer, more than a scientist. He observed stuff and wrote about it - but science is something you DO, not something you see.

Science writes equations for kinetics, studies the shapes of molecules, and provides formulas for mutation rates in DNA. All that is a far cry from "survival of the fittest", which was a swag in the first place.

I don't see why anyone cares about Darwin. He's a Boogeyman, nothing more.

Darwin will never be forgotten you IDIOT.
His Evolution theory is the very basis of Modern Biology.
Nor will Newton or Galileo be forgotten, but Darwin's outshines them both in daily scientific relevance.
`

 

[hadit]

As Usual, Both Sides Are What Their Common Rulers Wish Them to Be

Matter has always existed; it never had a beginning. You have to accept that possibility if you preach the same thing about God.

Matter changes into different forms in its interactions with other matter and forces such as gravity.

Nothing comes from nothing, so the origin of this universe was the reverse eruption of a black hole in another universe.

Reverse eruption, of a region of space so tightly bound by gravity that nothing can ever escape?

Life, intelligence, and will have the same history as matter. Evolution came from intelligent self-design and needed no Creator. Supernaturalism is superstition. It shows contempt for life, intelligence and will.

Your belief is not what prevailing theory says about the creation of the universe. It says that there was nothing, then MIRACULOUSLY a singularity appeared that contained all the energy of the universe, then MIRACULOUSLY that singularity expanded to create the universe, and all the laws of physics were created in that instant. As that energy dissipated, it cooled down enough that particles began to MIRACULOUSLY appear, according to the laws that were just created. Some of these particles were close enough together that they ignited fusion reactions, which MIRCULOUSLY created other, heavier particles which in turn were blown out into the universe when the stars that created them blew up.

So, you see, prevailing theory says that everything MIRACULOUSLY appeared from nothing, but we dare not call it a miracle or anything like that.

 

[abu afak]

Reverse eruption, of a region of space so tightly bound by gravity that nothing can ever escape?

Your belief is not what prevailing theory says about the creation of the universe. It says that there was nothing, then MIRACULOUSLY a singularity appeared that contained all the energy of the universe, then MIRACULOUSLY that singularity expanded to create the universe, and all the laws of physics were created in that instant. As that energy dissipated, it cooled down enough that particles began to MIRACULOUSLY appear, according to the laws that were just created. Some of these particles were close enough together that they ignited fusion reactions, which MIRCULOUSLY created other, heavier particles which in turn were blown out into the universe when the stars that created them blew up.

So, you see, prevailing theory says that everything MIRACULOUSLY appeared from nothing, but we dare not call it a miracle or anything like that.

Which has nothing to do with Darwin or 'blowing him up.'
Darwin's theory begins after life starts.
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's at Least your FIFTH Identical posting , 4 on the last page and answer once by me above on This page already.
You are a Sore-Loser Troll, proselytizing NT Mental case, and a crazy Street person with a keyboard.


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, repeating sore Loser.
She's FAILED JESUS/The Church again.

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.""​

[......]​

`

• 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]

Why do you care about Darwin?

No one cares about Darwin anymore.

You're trying to link Darwin with atheists on the one hand, and leftists on the other.

Neither religion nor politics is science.

And SCIENCE has advanced so far in 200 years that Darwin becomes largely irrelevant. He was an observer, more than a scientist. He observed stuff and wrote about it - but science is something you DO, not something you see.

Science writes equations for kinetics, studies the shapes of molecules, and provides formulas for mutation rates in DNA. All that is a far cry from "survival of the fittest", which was a swag in the first place.

I don't see why anyone cares about Darwin. He's a Boogeyman, nothing more.

1. Because it is taught at every level in education as a fact.


2. Leftists/Marxists fight tooth and nail for Darwin as 'proof' that God is not the explanation for life on Earth


3. Because the Judeo-Christian faith is the basis for Western Civilization, and Leftism/Marxism is the antithesis of our Civilization.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's at Least your FIFTH Identical posting , 4 on the last page and answer once by me above on This page already.
You are a Sore-Loser Troll, proselytizing NT Mental case, and a crazy Street person with a keyboard.


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, repeating sore Loser.
She's FAILED JESUS/The Church again.

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.""​

[......]​

Scientific American is neither scientific nor American.


It is owned and operated by the woke Marxists/Democrats.



....cultural Marxists, have taken over nearly every avenue of the dissemination of information.


This is the problem when totalitarians take control.

1. In the Soviet Union, science gave up its mission.....the collection of provable knowledge.....at the point of a gun. Under the other socialist entity, the Nazis, the same produced all sorts of 'knowledge' about Jews and other undesirables.
No guns were necessary here.




2. Those of us who don't vote Democrat recognized the facts long ago. This was a 2021 Scientific American

3. "This is the real cover, which reads like a joke....
offers the following gems, all straight from the world of Critical Race Theory, the most racist concept to hit America since the KKK was kicked to the basement:

• From Civil Rights to Black Lives Matter
• How Diversity Makes Us Smarter
• We'll Never Fix Systemic Racism by Being Polite
• How to Unlearn Racism
• How to Think about 'Implicit Bias'
• The Flexibility of Racial Bias
• Bias Detectives
• Microaggressions: Death by a Thousand Cuts
• George Floyd's Autopsy and the Structural Gaslighting of America (an article that required 12 people to fill the byline)
• The Brilliance Paradox: What Really Keeps Women and Minorities from Excelling in Academia
• Inequality before Birth Contributes to Health Inequality in Adults
• The Harm That Data Do
• Why Racism, Not Race, Is a Risk Factor for Dying of COVID-19
• We Learned the Wrong Lessons from the Tuskegee 'Experiment'
• To Prevent Women from Dying in Childbirth, First Stop Blaming Them
• The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity
• A Civil Rights Expert Explains the Social Science of Police Racism
• White Chicago Cops Use Force More Often Than Black Officers
• Police Violence Calls for Measures beyond De-escalation Training
• How Economic Inequality Harms the Environment
• People of Color Breathe More Unhealthy Air from Nearly All Polluting Sources
• Solar Power's Benefits Don't Shine Equally on Everyone
• The Case for Antiracism
• Implicit Biases toward Race and Sexuality Have Decreased
• We Must Confront Anti-Asian Racism in Science
• Take Racism Out of Medical Algorithms
• Clinical Trials Have Far Too Little Racial and Ethnic Diversity
• Three Ways to Fix Toxic Policing
• What Neuroimaging Can Tell Us about Our Unconscious Biases
• Racism and Sexism in Science Haven't Disappeared