Blowing Up Darwin

[Dante]

Perhaps you can explain where the first living organism came from.

No scientist can.

Can you explain why Darwin's theory is so important to Marxism.


Careful.....if this is your first attempt at thinking, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Is it?

Who cares. The Cold War ended last century. Move on.

 

[Dante]

Key points: Charles Darwin was a British naturalist who proposed the theory of biological evolution by natural selection. Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification," the idea that species change over time, give rise to new species, and share a common ancestor.

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

Evolution​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even AI knows better than the anti-science quacks here @ usmb

AI Overview
Learn more


Yes, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was not without some errors, but it was mostly correct and remains a fundamental part of modern biological theory:

• Mass extinctions
  Darwin believed mass extinctions were an artifact of an imperfect geologic record.
• Species diversity
  Darwin thought that species diversity would increase exponentially over time, like individuals of a species.
  
  
  
• Extinction causes
  Darwin thought that biotic interactions were the main cause of species extinction.
• Age of the Earth
  Modern instruments have shown that the Earth is older than Darwin's calculations.

• Speciation
  No one has observed speciation, or the evolution of one species into another, through variation and selection.
• Evolution of terrestrial animals
  Darwin's theory did not explain how terrestrial animals evolved from aquatic forms.

However, Darwin's theory was mostly correct, and he made some prophetic predictions, such as that the earliest human fossils would be found in Africa. Science is a constantly evolving field, and new discoveries force scientists to modify their understanding.

You are explaining why there is no proof of Darwin's theory.


There is, in fact, proof of the very opposit of Darwin.


The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " 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)




You've been fooled yet again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was not without some errors, but it was mostly correct and remains a fundamental part of modern biological theory

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.

 

[Dante]

One more:

He was right about evolution, that is. He wasn't right about everything. Being a restless explainer, Darwin floated a number of theoretical notions during his long working life, some of which were mistaken and illusory. He was wrong about what causes variation within a species.

Was Darwin Wrong?

The work of the 19th-century English naturalist shocked society and revolutionized science. How well has it withstood the test of time?

www.nationalgeographic.com

Even Wikipedia:
Is darwinian evolution disproven?


"Numerous transitional fossils have since been found. Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests. Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed, but these amendments and falsifications have uniformly confirmed his central concepts."

Falsifiability (or refutability) is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.

 

[Dante]

Karl Marx was...

Political, Ideological. No one looks to him for answers regarding science -- except loons like you'

next

 

[PoliticalChic]

One more:

He was right about evolution, that is. He wasn't right about everything. Being a restless explainer, Darwin floated a number of theoretical notions during his long working life, some of which were mistaken and illusory. He was wrong about what causes variation within a species.

Was Darwin Wrong?

The work of the 19th-century English naturalist shocked society and revolutionized science. How well has it withstood the test of time?

www.nationalgeographic.com

Even Wikipedia:
Is darwinian evolution disproven?


"Numerous transitional fossils have since been found. Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests. Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed, but these amendments and falsifications have uniformly confirmed his central concepts."

No they haven't.


There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.

“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political, Ideological. No one looks to him for answers regarding science -- except loons like you'

next

. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:



This is where all the government school grads say...."duhhhhhhhh........"

 

[JoeB131]

Political Chick probably thinks Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political, Ideological. No one looks to him for answers regarding science -- except loons like you'

next

Darwin is very useful to Marxism in it's anti-religion stanace.

A number of evolutionists are admitted Marxists.



In a century and a half since Darwin, with more scientists working than in all of history....there remains zero proof of his thesis.

And the folks advancing it are admitted Marxists.

Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chick probably thinks Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed.

Brilliant post.


I guess you got tired of me slapping you around, huh?

 

[Rigby5]

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.”

There is absolutely no basis for Meyer's views at all, in any way.
Obviously no species has remained static.
The closest to not being an ongoing evolution is the sea sponge, but that just because it is so successful that it does not have to evolve.
There is not any other species that is not a continual spectrum of evolutionary change, including humans coming from primitive arboreal primates.

The ignorance of Meyer's claim that there is a lack of evidence for some transitions is that of course any evolution only happens when a species is unsuccessful, low in number, and therefore has more inbreeding.
Clearly Meyer knows nothing about science or evolution.

 

[Rigby5]

• 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.”

Tucker is totally wrong.
Evolution does NOT mean, need, or claim that "all life originated from a single organism", but there is lots of "fossil record" of that evolution.

Go back 100 million years, and none of the species now exist, but their very different ancestors exist instead.

 

[Rigby5]

If the earth was as old as they say it is, we'd all be living in tunnels through bones.

Bones rapidly decompose.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is science. Not sure what you flat-earthers and podcast listeners find in these idiots that pontificate stupidity.
But, you'll believe anything...so...

@Mods:

Does not belong in the science section. Please move to Conspiracy Theories or Rubber Room.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the earth was as old as they say it is, we'd all be living in tunnels through bones.

If the earth were as old as they found out it is, then all the evidence would agree that it is 4.54 billion years old.

And guess what... it does.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Once you figure out how an arm or a wing develops, we can talk. Till then it's all conjecture.

We already figured that out. Selection forces and genetic drift cause small changes that accumulate over time.

The same forces that can cause limbs to disappear over time, as well.

 

[Rigby5]

Darwin's "theory" has a lot of science behind it. Some of it isn't even theory. It's not even what many portray to be.

Creation does adapt to it's surroundings. That is what Darwin argued. A moth can over time adopt colors that helps it to blend in to it's surroundings. We know this can happen.

Where this is no actual verifiable science is where the moth ever becomes anything other than moth.

Wrong.
We know all organisms, including moths, came from something other than what they are now, and are constantly changing into something else.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution does NOT mean, need, or claim that "all life originated from a single organism",

100% correct.

What it does claim is that there is a universal common ancestor.

 

[pknopp]

Wrong.
We know all organisms, including moths, came from something other than what they are now, and are constantly changing into something else.

You believe that. That's the best you can do. What exactly are moths changing into and where can I find them?