Blowing Up Darwin

[Sherlock Holmes]

And you can't wrap your mind around the topic.

"How does an MRI machine relate to that?"

It takes pictures of molecules, dumbass.

Your hero Tour can't wrap his mind around the topic either. The incessant demand for "proof" is nothing more than an excuse for a failure to understand the subject matter.

The subject matter is EVIDENCE, not proof. There is plenty of of evidence for biological evolution. MILLIONS of pieces of evidence. And not even one shred of evidence for a God of creation. Not one. Not even a single piece.

The modern theory of biological evolution deals with molecules. Not fossils. The fossil record is incomplete and will ALWAYS be incomplete, because much of it has been destroyed - by things like extinction events, and even by simpler things like primitive organisms being eaten, their molecules being recycled into more modern life forms. Which will provide a permanent and utterly ridiculous excuse for dumbass creationists to keep demanding "proof" and bleating about gaps in the end to end timeline.

The subject matter for evolution is MOLECULES. Big long complex ones being formed from simpler ones. And incorporating metal ions that serve as catalysts. That's it, that's all. The proof will come from our ability to create synthetic life forms in the laboratory, which has already happened and will continue to happen in ever increasing detail. This study requires detailed knowledge of the paramagnetic molecule called WATER, and how it arranges itself around cell membranes and DNA.

The best and irrefutable evidence for evolution is our ability to USE it for engineering purposes. Please do not speak to me about the fossil record ever again. If you want to know why a frog is a frog, ask me about Hox genes and Tbox transcription factors. I can do the same thing with a pin that a mutated Hox gene can do in vivo, I can make a frog grow arms where its eyes are supposed to be. I have done this myself, multiple times, I've seen the evidence with my own two eyes. The experiment is now standard practice in college level embryology courses.

If Darwin or anyone else has seen a frog with arms on its head he would have called it a different species. But it's not. It's just a mutated frog. It can survive, and reproduce, and mate with other frogs. If you want to argue evolution, learn about Hox genes and what they do and why they're important.

My patience grows thin with the misunderstanding and complete lack of understanding shown by people like your pal Dr Tour. He should be ashamed of himself, as a chemist he should know better.

The current state of the art in evolution research is the study of the development of shape, in embryology and across species. Some people study the segmentation of worms, others study the development of limbs. We already understand why some digits are webbed and others aren't. It has to do with programmed cell death. Death is an essential part of evolution, life wouldn't work without it. The focus on creation is getting to be increasingly brainless, because it misses 2/3 of the picture.

I study brain development, which is the MOST intricate part of evolution. Nerves migrate along chemical gradients,then sprout to find their targets, then 3/4 of the synapses die off to achieve the required function. The electrical communication between nerve cells is only 1/10 of the picture. We have technology today that can eject exactly two calcium ions into a synapse. Not 1 or 3, but exactly two. Why two? Because that's how many bind with a single receptor subunit, a receptor being a membrane protein that's locked into place by the cytoskeleton. Don't talk to me about fossils, I don't care and I don't want to hear it. No one cares about any goddamn fossils. Someday soon we'll be able to create an arbitrary life form at will. Then if a fossil is important enough we can recreate the organism and study it. Meanwhile harping on gaps is a complete waste of time and it only serves as evidence of ignorance.

Indeed. "What does an MRI have to do with that?" Sorry but that's a very ignorant question. Evolution is biophysics, not fossils. Ordinary MRI takes pictures of water molecules, but there is phosphate MRI too, that takes pictures of biological energy. A 7;Tesla MRI in a human takes 20 minutes in the hospital, but it only takes 6 seconds in a Petri dish. You can take a beating heart out of a frog, put it in a Petri dish, and before it dies you can map every single water molecule in it. Pretty soon we'll be able to watch live movies of the water during development. Why does water matter? Because sometimes it's required for genetic reactions, and sometimes it gets in the way. A chemist like Tour should know all about hydrolysis, but apparently he has no clue how it's used in living cells. It MATTERS for evolution, because hydrolysis and lack of hydrolysis can both cause mutations. The 70S ribosome has several thousand amino acids that do nothing but manage hydrolysis. It has a built in repair mechanism that corrects hydrolysis errors. And you're asking why we want to take pictures of water. Because you think evolution is about gaps in the fossil record. (Why else would you demand to see one species turning into another?)

Please, cut the crap and get with the program. We'll figure this stuff out with or without you. And you should learn to ask intelligent questions, that way you'll get intelligent answers.

TLDR

Aren't you glad I'm back to help you with your struggles in science...but go ahead and call me silly names too if you want, that's about all I ever see from you when your claims are discredited - claims like this one about MRI.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

People pay far too much attention to evolution theory. There's little practical value in studying it, I mean having knowledge about evolution is far more philosophical value than scientific. Most people couldn't care less about evolution and whether it be true or false. It is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to discredit certain theological beliefs.

I don't mean evolution theory itself is that, what I mean is emphasis and undue importance attached to it is mainly because of the theological situation. If evolution were proved false tomorrow it would have zero impact on science and technology.

 

[abu afak]

It's a theory not a fact, I studied the subject so feel free to ask me questions.

Perhaps you've missed my 10? postings of this in this thread alone.
Not possible but apparently true.
A 'Scientific Theory' is Not the same as the mere word 'theory' in every day usage.
(look it up goofy)

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002

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.​

[......]​

`​

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Perhaps you've missed my 10? postings of this in this thread alone.
Not possible but apparently true.
A Scientific theory is not the same as the mere word 'theory' in every day usage.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002

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 was responding to the posts remarks about GR.

Besides you rely on insults to make your case, so I have no interest in your pseudo scientific babbling.

 

[abu afak]

I was responding to the posts remarks about GR.

Besides you rely on insults to make your case, so I have no interest in your pseudo scientific babbling.

IOW you were/ARE Wrong
Adamantly and profoundly Wrong.
A Scientifc theory/Evo can be and IS a Fact.
And you are now angry at being Humiliated.

and your second Lie/Wrong...
Barbs/insults are allowed here but only as accompaniment to Factual posts, and perfect in cases like this where you make Pompous and asinine Wrong pronouncements.

My posts are the most fact-filled here and... look down at the OPs below as well.
No one posts more facts/Major pillars on this topic than me.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

IOW you were/ARE Wrong
Adamantly and profoundly Wrong.
A Scientifc theory/Evo can be and IS a Fact.
And you are now angry at being Humiliated.

and your second Lie/Wrong...
Barbs/insults are allowed here but only as accompaniment to Factual posts, and perfect in cases like this where you make Pompous and asinine Wrong pronouncements.
My posts are the most fact-filled here and... look down at the OPs below as well.
No one posts more facts/Major pillars on this topic than me.
`

The general theory of relativity is a theory in physics - you can disagree all you want, you're just going to look very foolish.

 

[abu afak]

People pay far too much attention to evolution theory. There's little practical value in studying it, I mean having knowledge about evolution is far more philosophical value than scientific. Most people couldn't care less about evolution and whether it be true or false. It is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to discredit certain theological beliefs.

I don't mean evolution theory itself is that, what I mean is emphasis and undue importance attached to it is mainly because of the theological situation. If evolution were proved false tomorrow it would have zero impact on science and technology.

More Wrong statements! (Bolded two especially)
Whoa!
You're on a tear of Misinformation with your Stupendously Wrong opinions.

"AI Overview

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the Foundation of modern biology, as it provides the framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth and how species change over time, essentially explaining the origin of all living organisms through a mechanism based on natural processes like variation and adaptation within populations.

Key points about Darwin's contribution to modern biology:

• Natural Selection:
  Darwin's central concept is that organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those beneficial traits to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in a species over generations.
• "Descent with modification":
  This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.
• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

Sherlock's Blinding Arrogance/Blinding Ignorance!
"If evolution were proved false tomorrow it would have zero impact on science and technology."
WTF!
WTF!

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have explained several times that the motivation for this thread is that politics is far more important in what we formerly called "science" than actual science.


If you Google "Is Darwin's theory a proven fact" you will find numerous citations stating that it is proven.


That's a lie.


As much a lie as what you were told for years as "Russia, Russia, Russia.'



Here is the world's most prodigious scientific group, the Royal Society:

"...the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. "

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

More Wrong statements! (Bolded two especially)
Whoa!
You're on a tear of Misinformation with your Wrong opinions.

"AI Overview

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the Foundation of modern biology, as it provides the framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth and how species change over time, essentially explaining the origin of all living organisms through a mechanism based on natural processes like variation and adaptation within populations.

Key points about Darwin's contribution to modern biology:

• Natural Selection:
  Darwin's central concept is that organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those beneficial traits to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in a species over generations.
• "Descent with modification":
  This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.
• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

Sherlock's Blinding Arrogance/Blinding Ignorance/outrageous Gall!
If evolution were proved false tomorrow it would have zero impact on science and technology.
WTF!

`

The value of a theory in science is what? do you even know?

I'll tell you, it's value is that it enables us to make predictions. When we can predict the outcome of certain situations we are said to "understand" those situations. Thus we can predict the trajectory of artificial satellites in orbit because we have theories - models - that enable us to predict those trajectories, we "understand" orbital dynamics.

Evolution does not make predictions, you cannot predict anything useful at all to my knowledge so what value does the theory have? Any theory that does not offer a way to make testable predictions is by definition just a hypothesis, not a theory.

Of course all you can do as usual is post silly giggle emoticons, this is the level you are at, juvenile antics.

 

[Leo123]

And you can't wrap your mind around the topic.

"How does an MRI machine relate to that?"

It takes pictures of molecules, dumbass.

Your hero Tour can't wrap his mind around the topic either. The incessant demand for "proof" is nothing more than an excuse for a failure to understand the subject matter.

The subject matter is EVIDENCE, not proof. There is plenty of of evidence for biological evolution. MILLIONS of pieces of evidence. And not even one shred of evidence for a God of creation. Not one. Not even a single piece.

The modern theory of biological evolution deals with molecules. Not fossils. The fossil record is incomplete and will ALWAYS be incomplete, because much of it has been destroyed - by things like extinction events, and even by simpler things like primitive organisms being eaten, their molecules being recycled into more modern life forms. Which will provide a permanent and utterly ridiculous excuse for dumbass creationists to keep demanding "proof" and bleating about gaps in the end to end timeline.

The subject matter for evolution is MOLECULES. Big long complex ones being formed from simpler ones. And incorporating metal ions that serve as catalysts. That's it, that's all. The proof will come from our ability to create synthetic life forms in the laboratory, which has already happened and will continue to happen in ever increasing detail. This study requires detailed knowledge of the paramagnetic molecule called WATER, and how it arranges itself around cell membranes and DNA.

The best and irrefutable evidence for evolution is our ability to USE it for engineering purposes. Please do not speak to me about the fossil record ever again. If you want to know why a frog is a frog, ask me about Hox genes and Tbox transcription factors. I can do the same thing with a pin that a mutated Hox gene can do in vivo, I can make a frog grow arms where its eyes are supposed to be. I have done this myself, multiple times, I've seen the evidence with my own two eyes. The experiment is now standard practice in college level embryology courses.

If Darwin or anyone else has seen a frog with arms on its head he would have called it a different species. But it's not. It's just a mutated frog. It can survive, and reproduce, and mate with other frogs. If you want to argue evolution, learn about Hox genes and what they do and why they're important.

My patience grows thin with the misunderstanding and complete lack of understanding shown by people like your pal Dr Tour. He should be ashamed of himself, as a chemist he should know better.

The current state of the art in evolution research is the study of the development of shape, in embryology and across species. Some people study the segmentation of worms, others study the development of limbs. We already understand why some digits are webbed and others aren't. It has to do with programmed cell death. Death is an essential part of evolution, life wouldn't work without it. The focus on creation is getting to be increasingly brainless, because it misses 2/3 of the picture.

I study brain development, which is the MOST intricate part of evolution. Nerves migrate along chemical gradients,then sprout to find their targets, then 3/4 of the synapses die off to achieve the required function. The electrical communication between nerve cells is only 1/10 of the picture. We have technology today that can eject exactly two calcium ions into a synapse. Not 1 or 3, but exactly two. Why two? Because that's how many bind with a single receptor subunit, a receptor being a membrane protein that's locked into place by the cytoskeleton. Don't talk to me about fossils, I don't care and I don't want to hear it. No one cares about any goddamn fossils. Someday soon we'll be able to create an arbitrary life form at will. Then if a fossil is important enough we can recreate the organism and study it. Meanwhile harping on gaps is a complete waste of time and it only serves as evidence of ignorance.

Indeed. "What does an MRI have to do with that?" Sorry but that's a very ignorant question. Evolution is biophysics, not fossils. Ordinary MRI takes pictures of water molecules, but there is phosphate MRI too, that takes pictures of biological energy. A 7;Tesla MRI in a human takes 20 minutes in the hospital, but it only takes 6 seconds in a Petri dish. You can take a beating heart out of a frog, put it in a Petri dish, and before it dies you can map every single water molecule in it. Pretty soon we'll be able to watch live movies of the water during development. Why does water matter? Because sometimes it's required for genetic reactions, and sometimes it gets in the way. A chemist like Tour should know all about hydrolysis, but apparently he has no clue how it's used in living cells. It MATTERS for evolution, because hydrolysis and lack of hydrolysis can both cause mutations. The 70S ribosome has several thousand amino acids that do nothing but manage hydrolysis. It has a built in repair mechanism that corrects hydrolysis errors. And you're asking why we want to take pictures of water. Because you think evolution is about gaps in the fossil record. (Why else would you demand to see one species turning into another?)

Please, cut the crap and get with the program. We'll figure this stuff out with or without you. And you should learn to ask intelligent questions, that way you'll get intelligent answers.

Again you cannot comprehend. Molecules alone do not create life. Evolution does not explain the origin of life because there has to be life from which to evolve. Where did that life come from? Your circular thinking has no answer other than to call me a 'dumbass.' To date, no one has created life from nothing. You are proficient at describing the actions of life but deficient in explaining where that life came from and, I might add, insulting and arrogant.

 

[abu afak]

Again you cannot comprehend. Molecules alone do not create life. Evolution does not explain the origin of life because there has to be life from which to evolve. Where did that life come from? Your circular thinking has no answer other than to call me a 'dumbass.' To date, no one has created life from nothing. You are proficient at describing the actions of life but deficient in explaining where that life came from and, I might add, insulting and arrogant.

That's right and No one said it did unless it was the long-winded idiot Scruffy trying to show he went to college for a year.
BUT again, Evolution/Darwin starts AFTER life does and has been going on for billions of years with Overwhelming Evidence. This does not "Blow up" anything.
Abiogenesis is a separate topic.

There is speculation based on the the fact molecules have interacting tendencies in some conditions, that this was also part of the process, but this/abiogenesis does not affect the Theory and FACT of Evolution/Darwin
(see my 'self-replicating' thread below)

Now go lick your pulpit you 10 word asshole.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's right and No one said it did unless it was the long-winded idiot Scruffy trying to show he went to college for a year.
BUT again, Evolution/Darwin starts AFTER life does and has been going on for billions of years with Overwhelming Evidence. This does not "Blow up" anything.
Abiogenesis is a separate topic.

There is speculation based on the the fact molecules have interacting tendencies in some conditions, that this was also part of the process, but this/abiogenesis does not affect the Theory and FACT of Evolution/Darwin
(see my 'self-replicating' thread below)

Now go lick your pulpit you 10 word asshole.
`

You say its a separate topic but I've never really respected that position. Evolution and abiogenesis are purported naturalistic explanations for the world of living things, ultimately they attempt to "explain" how sophisticated creations can arise without a creator.

In that sense they address the same underlying problem, how to naturalistically explain the presence of life.

Now as a (amateur?) scientist you'll agree that the law of biogenesis (life comes only from life) is the most verified hypothesis in the sciences, there are no counter examples at all, based on empiricism then abiogenesis is not really science any more than the claim that energy can just spontaneously appear out of nothing, is science.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So read, then. Show us you've at least looked at the pictures. You mock the experts without studying their expertise

Here, look: the enzyme that makes RNA from DNA is called a polymerase. There isn't just one, there are five or more types.

RNA polymerase - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The question is, how does RNA polymerase know where to bind and where to start reading out?

The answer is, there is a region preceding a gene, called the promoter. The polymerase bonds to the promoter region, then starts reading out the DNA sequence.

Promoter (genetics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But it's not that simple. The promoter region is controlled by other proteins called transcription factors.

Transcription factor - Wikipedia

These are timed to either enhance or suppress promotion. To facilitate piecewise evolution there are FIVE LAYERS of control by transcription factors. TF2 either enables or suppresses TF1. TF3 either enables or suppresses TF2. And so on.

Why all this complexity? If you're an engineer, why not just use ONE transcription factor that regulates the gene correctly?

The answer is, because the same gene that codes for blue eyes at birth, also codes for Parkinson's disease later in life. Bits and pieces of genes are re-used, for different purposes. Promoters live inside other genes, and are carved away after being read out.

The principle is sometimes called "layered evolution". Because this way you can change a dog into a wolf by altering a single gene. Because the one gene, will cause a whole cascade of changes, starting in the embryo.

You've probably heard that 98.8% of the human genome is identical to that of a chimpanzee. Which parts are different? Guess what, it's the transcription factors. That, and areas called "endogenous retroviruses", which are even weirder.



This is how deeply genomes are being studied. We can use certain types of MRI image enhancers in chimps, when we're studying their brains, that don't work in humans. This is why. There's a transcription factor expressed in the human hippocampus that degrades the proline in the dye. It's not expressed in chimps, even though the gene still exists. So that 1.2% genetic variation ends up making a huge difference. Note the specific language: endogenous retroviruses can "provide" their promoters. What they're saying is there's a piece of DNA somewhere, that codes for an internal virus that let's one cell communicate with another. When that communication happens, the virus "provides" another little piece of DNA that serves as a promoter in the target cell.

Did you know, that if you turn off all the viruses in the human body (which you can do), the brain stops functioning entirely? True fact. Memory stops, and humans can no longer navigate the streets. We become figuratively brain dead.

Who in the world would design a system this way? I wouldn't. Would you?

Oncologists Get Away with Being Total Failures

What about my theory that cancer happens when junk DNA is turned into a living microbe because of a malignant promoter gene the victim is born with, not by any outside "carcinogen"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

abu afak you can laugh but you can't hide.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is the average human height since 1900.

View attachment 1052543


Question: why did it start flattening out around 1970 or so?

Boomers Who Belittled

That's when the RichKid Reich, devolved from the self-made HeirDads of the postwar bubble, took over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

• 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

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

S

Getting tan is a simple example of adaptation.

Pale Supremacy

Since, as we are told, racism is not a rational judgment but only about skin color, getting a tan will lead to a miserable life of being picked on all the time, ending up with being murdered by police, or at least by the Daniel Pennys of this world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose — reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived, and actual, status of the theory...."

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

People pay far too much attention to evolution theory. There's little practical value in studying it, I mean having knowledge about evolution is far more philosophical value than scientific. Most people couldn't care less about evolution and whether it be true or false. It is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to discredit certain theological beliefs.

I don't mean evolution theory itself is that, what I mean is emphasis and undue importance attached to it is mainly because of the theological situation. If evolution were proved false tomorrow it would have zero impact on science and technology.

The Road to Perdition Is Patrician

But at the same time the Christofascists Paleoconservatives believe in Social Darwinism: "Survival of the Fatherest."

Darwin wrote that the fittest pass on their superior genes to their offspring, thus justifying hereditary wealth, political power, social influence, and business ownership.

It is not only a cancer on society; it is another contradiction. Why, if they are so superior, would the "well-born" need a head start? It's like letting the Super Bowl Winner start each game next season with a 14-0 lead.

 

[scruffy]

Again you cannot comprehend.

I comprehend fully. You don't.

I'm a practitioner. I prove myself through actions and accomplishments.

While you're still asking irrelevant questions.

You are proving every one of Abu Afak's accusations.

Molecules alone do not create life. Evolution does not explain the origin of life because there has to be life from which to evolve. Where did that life come from?

Back to the irrelevant origin question?

Evolution has nothing to do with origins.

You've been schooled on that point at least a dozen times. Yet you keep coming back with the same nonsense.

Your circular thinking has no answer other than to call me a 'dumbass.' To date, no one has created life from nothing. You are proficient at describing the actions of life but deficient in explaining where that life came from and, I might add, insulting and arrogant.

This is just stupid. I'm done.