Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

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

Try posting some science instead of your Idiotic attempts to smear by association Darwin/Evo with Marxism/leftism/Democrats, etc, you Literalist Religious Freak.



And always with the giant 3, 4, 5 lines spacing for the illusion of more content, but only proving you're a Retarded RW Christ Billboard.
`
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

And Darwin's theory ends there: the proof is the very opposite of the theory.



. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess!


And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! "

A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try posting some science instead of your Idiotic attempts to smear by association Darwin/Evo with Marxism/leftism etc etc, you Literalist Religious Freak.
And always with the giant 3, 4, 5 lines spacing for the illusion of more content, but only proving you're a Retarded Christ Billboard.
`
`

Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… 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.



3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.

Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.

 

[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????
Click to expand...

Again (5, 6,7?): 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.
[......]
`

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

• 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????

We Are Passively Given a Multiple Choice in Which "None of the Above" Is Forbidden

Why do we trust only either one of the two theories proposed by the self-appointed rulers of thought? Intelligent Self-Design is dismissed as literally "out of the question" by mind-slaves.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

How did 'nature' do this and why can't it be replicated today? There must be billions of ponds on Earth today yet, no new life is ever created. Perhaps the primordial pond explanation is lacking? Life (the self creation of animate, self replicating organisms) seems to require an element we know nothing about.

View attachment 1051254

You're Using a Snowman as a Strawman

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

They Keep Us Down by Keeping Us Dumb

The fact that living things have so many defects proves that God doesn't have superior intelligence, which means He's not a god.

Theists are once again begging the question. That's why the rulers don't want us to kinow what that phrase really means.

 

[scruffy]

Darwin will never be forgotten you IDIOT.
His Evolution theory is the very basis of Modern Biology.

Not really.

Modern biology is molecular, it has nothing to do with fossils.

Nor will Newton or Galileo be forgotten, but Darwin's outshines them both in daily scientific relevance.
`

Darwin is a lot like Sigmund Freud.

Interesting in the 19th century, but mostly irrelevant today.

 

[scruffy]

And Darwin's theory ends there: the proof is the very opposite of the theory.



. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess!


And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! "

A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

This is actually perfectly logical.

As I suggested, you can understand it and benefit by studying Catastrophe Theory.

Catastrophe Theory explains how smooth processes can lead to rapid and discontinuous outcomes. This is especially true (and ubiquitous) for random processes.

There are only 7 types of catastrophes in three dimensions, they're pretty easy to understand. The most important one for evolution is called a cusp.

Catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

All Is Lava

Like all jumps, the Quantum Leap is obviously an extension into an extra spatial dimension. You can explain everthing else through rational and commonplace objections.

This irrational German physics was followed by irrational German politics. It's no coincidence that one of its key idols worked to develop an atomic bomb for the Nazis.

 

[scruffy]

Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… 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.



3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.

Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.

Yeah, but this is abuse of science. (Not science itself).

It makes no sense to go after the science when it's the abusers that are at fault.

There is really no contradiction between religion and science. As you say, it's pretty remarkable that a bunch of 3000 year old Jews got the order of evolution right.

The modern people like Marx are abusers, they're trying to use science to justify social theories, which is an abuse, plain and simple.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, but this is abuse of science. (Not science itself).

It makes no sense to go after the science when it's the abusers that are at fault.

There is really no contradiction between religion and science. As you say, it's pretty remarkable that a bunch of 3000 year old Jews got the order of evolution right.

The modern people like Marx are abusers, they're trying to use science to justify social theories, which is an abuse, plain and simple.

There is no "science" any longer.


In a recent OP (If You Have Learned Anything At All.....) I wrote about the editor of Scientific American having to resign after a vulgarity-laced rant about the Rigth.
I used it to point out that the Marxists/Democrats have destroyed any legitimacy the magazine, and, actually, science had (the Covid Scam to shut the economy to thwart Trump)>



Now, Bill Maher had Neil deGrasse Tyson on his show and ripped him a new one, holding him up as an example of what I said about 'science.'





"As my esteemed colleague Chris Queen noted a few days ago, the editor of Scientific American — formerly a respected, apolitical scientific journal that’s been in publication since 1845 — resigned in disgrace after launching a vulgar, profanity-laced diatribe against Trump voters. Under her watch, Scientific American magazine, which had NEVER made a presidential endorsement before (because, as a scientific journal, why would they?), made their first two: In 2020 (for Joe Biden) and in 2024 (for Kamala Harris).


But apologists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson don’t think it’s a big deal.

Think about that contradiction: Tyson has dedicated himself to educating people about science! He’s not a celebrity because of his academic work; solely on the basis of his academic work, he’s not a particularly remarkable scientist. Schoolchildren certainly won’t be reading biographies about him in 50 years. Instead, it’s his work as a “science popularizer” in media that’s earned him his fame, wealth, and oodles of royalties.

Yet somehow, he’s oblivious to the perceptual dangers of Scientific American magazine adopting an anti-Trump partisan stance? Or reappropriating the credibility of “science” to promote partisan political views? Or for their editor to accuse half the country of being fascists?!"

Bill Maher Beclowns Neil deGrasse Tyson on Scientific Bias: You Are ‘Part of the Problem’​

pjmedia.com

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is actually perfectly logical.

As I suggested, you can understand it and benefit by studying Catastrophe Theory.

Catastrophe Theory explains how smooth processes can lead to rapid and discontinuous outcomes. This is especially true (and ubiquitous) for random processes.

There are only 7 types of catastrophes in three dimensions, they're pretty easy to understand. The most important one for evolution is called a cusp.

Catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Paleontologists Are Irrelevant

A catastrophic volcano eruption in 70,000 BC drastically reduced sunlight and almost wiped out the human species, leaving only 20,000 left on the whole planet. That must be where modern evolution to homo sapiens began. Since humans didn't develop any physical changes to cope with the destroyed environment, they must have evolved our innovative and opportunistic intelligence instead.

 

[scruffy]

There is no "science" any longer.


In a recent OP (If You Have Learned Anything At All.....) I wrote about the editor of Scientific American having to resign after a vulgarity-laced rant about the Rigth.
I used it to point out that the Marxists/Democrats have destroyed any legitimacy the magazine, and, actually, science had (the Covid Scam to shut the economy to thwart Trump)>



Now, Bill Maher had Neil deGrasse Tyson on his show and ripped him a new one, holding him up as an example of what I said about 'science.'





"As my esteemed colleague Chris Queen noted a few days ago, the editor of Scientific American — formerly a respected, apolitical scientific journal that’s been in publication since 1845 — resigned in disgrace after launching a vulgar, profanity-laced diatribe against Trump voters. Under her watch, Scientific American magazine, which had NEVER made a presidential endorsement before (because, as a scientific journal, why would they?), made their first two: In 2020 (for Joe Biden) and in 2024 (for Kamala Harris).


But apologists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson don’t think it’s a big deal.

Think about that contradiction: Tyson has dedicated himself to educating people about science! He’s not a celebrity because of his academic work; solely on the basis of his academic work, he’s not a particularly remarkable scientist. Schoolchildren certainly won’t be reading biographies about him in 50 years. Instead, it’s his work as a “science popularizer” in media that’s earned him his fame, wealth, and oodles of royalties.

Yet somehow, he’s oblivious to the perceptual dangers of Scientific American magazine adopting an anti-Trump partisan stance? Or reappropriating the credibility of “science” to promote partisan political views? Or for their editor to accuse half the country of being fascists?!"

Bill Maher Beclowns Neil deGrasse Tyson on Scientific Bias: You Are ‘Part of the Problem’​

pjmedia.com

But none of this is science.

Science is something you do.

Writing articles in a magazine is not science. Getting on TV with an opinion is not science.

I'll give you an example.

Darwin himself, coined the phrase "survival of the fittest". We now know, that this is not an accurate conclusion based on the data. Because, the term "fittest" is inaccurate.

The SCIENCE says there are niches, and any organism that fills a niche can survive. It has nothing to do with "fitness", rather, it has to do with the compatibility between the organism and the niche.

This is why a study of catastrophe theory is helpful, because the interaction between organisms and niches is formulated in terms of the branch of mathematics called "dynamics".

Simple dynamics are linear, for example you have a pendulum, or a mass on a spring, that kind of thing. We solve these using LaPlace's equation and etc (because fundamentally they obey "conservation laws").

But biological evolution is fundamentally nonlinear, the dynamics are more complicated. Catastrophe Theory is all about nonlinear dynamics. One of its biggest successes is solving chaotic systems, where for example "the butterfly flapping it's wings in Montana causes the typhoon in Malaysia".

Biological evolution is sometimes chaotic, because there are gazillions of interacting dynamics. Even a single nerve cell is highly nonlinear, and when you put hundreds of them together and try to describe the "system dynamics" you find that the collection can instantly transition from brain waves to an unsynchronized state and back again.

Such transitions are what is described by catastrophe theory. It is essentially "complex high dimensional dynamics".

You've probably heard of the computer "game of life", where you have foxes, chickens, and corn, and you try to predict what the biosphere looks like at some future time. This is a great and simple example of where catastrophe theory can be helpful . Because normally, you have a population "cycle", where the numbers of foxes and chickens varies smoothly depending on the food supply. But sometimes, you get a "cusp", where your system behavior kind of falls off a cliff, so to speak. It might happen if you run out of corn one day because there are too many chickens - and then the chickens die because they can't eat, and then the foxes die because there's not enough chickens anymore.

So in this game, the chickens have a niche, and the foxes have a niche. It has nothing to do with "fitness", instead it has to do with the stability of the niches. When they become unstable, you get a catastrophe, which means "a sudden change in system dynamics".

The appearance of a new species, in biology, is "a sudden change in system dynamics".

 

[Leo123]

You're Using a Snowman as a Strawman

It’s called an allegory. A teaching tool if you will.

 

[hadit]

Yeah, but this is abuse of science. (Not science itself).

It makes no sense to go after the science when it's the abusers that are at fault.

There is really no contradiction between religion and science. As you say, it's pretty remarkable that a bunch of 3000 year old Jews got the order of evolution right.

The modern people like Marx are abusers, they're trying to use science to justify social theories, which is an abuse, plain and simple.

They even noted that light existed before stars, which holds with the current theory of expansion.

 

[Leo123]

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.

Abio means nothing biological. No living molecules. Carbon is only an element. You can’t make life with it even though it is an element in living cells. Life has never been created in a lab.

 

[scruffy]

Abio means nothing biological. No living molecules. Carbon is only an element. You can’t make life with it even though it is an element in living cells. Life has never been created in a lab.

Not true.

Synthetic life forms have been created in the lab since the early 2000's.

They continue to be created every day.

Many of them qualify as brand new species, never before seen and non-existent in nature.

We can also synthetically replicate organisms that already exist in nature.

Right now, we are at the stage of being able to create primitive single celled organisms (essentially bacteria). But the study of Hox and Tbox genes is one of the hottest topics in biological research right now. It won't be but a few years till we can start creating eukaryotes.

It is abundantly clear by now that engineering is the next phase of evolution. It'll probably happen within our lifetimes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you want to reply, please at least say something.

I did. Pay attention. What you said was false.

You don't want to go around spreading lies, do you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Moths.

Wrong again.

See? Pay attention. You will learn something.