Blowing Up Darwin

[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

AGAIN (9, 10, 11?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

""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.
[......]


Have a Nice Page!

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Prove it.

Prove what?

Be specific.

Then tell me what some compelling evidence of the truth of it might look like.

Like a high school sophomore could do.

And don't forget to describe your alternative explanation. You seemed to forget, in that last post.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Precisely so you are in no position to make statements about the world and insist they are true.

I of course am, and all of your huffing and puffing and hilariously bad acting will get you absolutely nowhere in your goofy religioner nutter crusade to undermine the most robust scientific theory in history.

Sorry.

 

[scruffy]

"...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.

You claim your thread is about evil politicians, yet you attempt to use science to make your point. There seems to be some hypocrisy in your effort here.

Look - biological evolution is not a simple thing. It's very, very complex. MORE complex than general relativity - and the number of people in this world who truly understand general relativity is probably in the low thousands.

Your point is made about evil politicians, and I agree with it. But you're exceeding scope when you're talking about science.

I'll bet you 100 bucks right now that the people you're quoting don't know what a Wiener process is or why it's important for evolution.

Whereas I can rattle that stuff off the top of my head, I could write the stochastic equations right now if I had a math font.

To understand evolution you need to know about dynamics and stochastic differential equations. I can try to explain the concepts in an understandable way, but I can't solve the equations on this forum.

And the equations completely blow away these idiots who claim things are impossible. These same idiots said the same thing about the quantum theory. And the computer people ignored them, and here we are in a world full of quantum computers.

Evolution is the same way. Us biologists will simply ignore the naysayers and tomorrow you'll wake up in a wonderful world full of synthetic life forms that cure disease and remove pollution and solve a lot of mankind's problems.

(I don't know if they'll fix the politicians though, that part is challenging).

 

[pknopp]

Prove what?

Be specific.

Then tell me what some compelling evidence of the truth of it might look like.

Like a high school sophomore could do.

And don't forget to describe your alternative explanation. You seemed to forget, in that last post.

We've already agreed a canid can become a canid. All you have to do is prove whatever came before that wasn't a canid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All you have to do is prove whatever came before that wasn't a canid.

Great!

What would some compelling evidence of this look like, to you?

Just brainstorm a couple of ideas.

Also, please try to understand the somewhat goofy nature of your question. "Canid" is a definition. It's an arbitrary definition we invented for a group of animals. So we would have to agree on definitions. Let's agree a fish is not a canid, for example.

 

[Leo123]

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.



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.



This is just stupid. I'm done.

No, you don't comprehend fully. I never said evolution had anything to do with the origin of life. I

 

[abu afak]

We've already agreed a canid can become a canid. All you have to do is prove whatever came before that wasn't a canid.

Hey 12 IQ JERK extraordinaire, ever think of Googling?
YOU are a ONE LINE @SSHOLE/TROLL

Canidae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evolution​

See also: Caninae § Phylogenetic relationships

Eocene epoch​

Carnivorans evolved after the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
Around 50 million years ago, or earlier, in the Paleocene, the Carnivora split into two main divisions: caniform (dog-like) and feliform (cat-like). By 40 Mya, the first identifiable member of the dog family had arisen.
Named Prohesperocyon wilsoni, its fossils have been found in southwest Texas. The chief features which identify it as a canid include the loss of the upper third molar (part of a trend toward a more shearing bite), and the structure of the middle ear which has an enlarged bulla (the hollow bony structure protecting the delicate parts of the ear). Prohesperocyon probably had slightly longer limbs than its predecessors, and also had parallel and closely touching toes which differ markedly from the splayed arrangements of the digits in bears.[9]

Canidae soon divided into three subfamilies, each of which diverged during the Eocene: Hesperocyoninae (about 39.74–15 Mya), Borophaginae (about 34–32 Mya), and Caninae (about 34–30 Mya; the only surviving subfamily). Members of each subfamily showed an increase in body mass with time and some exhibited specialized hypercarnivorous diets that made them prone to extinction.[10]: Fig. 1 

Oligocene epoch[/B]​

By the Oligocene, all three subfamilies (Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae) had appeared in the fossil record of North America. The earliest and most primitive branch of the Canidae was Hesperocyoninae, which included the coyote-sized Mesocyon of the Oligocene (38–24 Mya). These early canids probably evolved for the fast pursuit of prey in a grassland habitat; they resembled modern viverrids in appearance. Hesperocyonines eventually became extinct in the middle Miocene. One of the early Hesperocyonines, the genus Hesperocyon, gave rise to Archaeocyon and Leptocyon. These branches led to the borophagine and canine radiations.[11]

Etc, etc,
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you don't comprehend fully. I never said evolution had anything to do with the origin of life. I

Yes, you tried to change the subject.

 

[pknopp]

Hey 12 IQ JERK extraordinaire, ever think of Googling?
YOU are a ONE LINE @SSHOLE/TROLL

Canidae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evolution​

See also: Caninae § Phylogenetic relationships

Eocene epoch​

Carnivorans evolved after the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
Around 50 million years ago, or earlier, in the Paleocene, the Carnivora split into two main divisions: caniform (dog-like) and feliform (cat-like). By 40 Mya, the first identifiable member of the dog family had arisen.
Named Prohesperocyon wilsoni, its fossils have been found in southwest Texas. The chief features which identify it as a canid include the loss of the upper third molar (part of a trend toward a more shearing bite), and the structure of the middle ear which has an enlarged bulla (the hollow bony structure protecting the delicate parts of the ear). Prohesperocyon probably had slightly longer limbs than its predecessors, and also had parallel and closely touching toes which differ markedly from the splayed arrangements of the digits in bears.[9]

Canidae soon divided into three subfamilies, each of which diverged during the Eocene: Hesperocyoninae (about 39.74–15 Mya), Borophaginae (about 34–32 Mya), and Caninae (about 34–30 Mya; the only surviving subfamily). Members of each subfamily showed an increase in body mass with time and some exhibited specialized hypercarnivorous diets that made them prone to extinction.[10]: Fig. 1 

Oligocene epoch[/B]​

By the Oligocene, all three subfamilies (Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae) had appeared in the fossil record of North America. The earliest and most primitive branch of the Canidae was Hesperocyoninae, which included the coyote-sized Mesocyon of the Oligocene (38–24 Mya). These early canids probably evolved for the fast pursuit of prey in a grassland habitat; they resembled modern viverrids in appearance. Hesperocyonines eventually became extinct in the middle Miocene. One of the early Hesperocyonines, the genus Hesperocyon, gave rise to Archaeocyon and Leptocyon. These branches led to the borophagine and canine radiations.[11]

Etc, etc,
`

We have already covered this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have already covered this.

Yes, you were about to give us some ideas of what would be compelling evidence of the truth of that, to you.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, you were about to give us some ideas of what would be compelling evidence of the truth of that, to you.

I don't dismiss that canids can become canids.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't dismiss that canids can become canids.

We already covered that.

Take your time. I imagine it will be a very long time indeed.

 

[scruffy]

Yes, you tried to change the subject.

I think we should be honest.

We're simply not interested in wasting our time to satisfy their standards of proof.

Creationists are stuck in 16th century thinking. Their definition of life is incorrect, and their definition of time is incorrect too.

Creationists are full of illogic. Life is not separate from energy. They are the same thing. Life is just a little more complex, that's all. But it's still made of electrons and photons and quarks. Same exact thing. There's nothing different about it.

Scientists don't try to "prove" stuff. We perform experiments so we can make more detailed observations. Ultimately these observations become useful for engineering. Marconi leads to synthetic aperture radar, that kind of thing.

Accomplishments are the proof. The successes of genetic engineering are proof enough. I'm not going to argue about fossils, don't know and don't care. As you say, if I need to know I can look at Wiki.

What's not on Wiki is a viable theory of nonlinear time. The string theorists have one (several, in fact), but it's too early for experiments.

Evolution, however, is pretty cut and dried by now. We can watch it with our own eyes. I don't think any geneticists worry about "proof". Or let's put it this way, Einstein "proved" relativity mathematically, and 100 years later our telescopes are still trying to "prove" he was right.

It isn't about the proof, it's about the DISproof. It's about successively better observations, more detailed and more precise.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Perhaps you can a’splain how your gods instantly “proofed” the planet and all living things into existence 6,000 years ago.

 

[Hollie]

Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”


Why would the Royal Society demand a new explanation for life on earth?

Oh, no, you didn’t really just invoke the Disco’tute fraud, Meyer.

ID’iot creationers are a laughable joke.

#276: Stephen Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Instit...

americanloons.blogspot.com

​

#276: Stephen Meyer​

Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

 

[Hollie]

AGAIN (9, 10, 11?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

""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.
[......]


Have a Nice Page!

`

Gravity is only a theory. As an 8 IQ ID’iot creationer, you don’t understand what a scientific theory is.

Have a nice retardation.

 

[Hollie]

• 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

Ask your charlatans at the Disco’tute to present their data regarding the magical, godly creation of the earth 6,000 years ago.

• 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

It’s in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

It’s obvious why you chose to cut and paste the above without attribution because you stole it from another ID’iot creationer blogs.



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.”

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



Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring. He admits that the fossil record shows sudden fully formed new species, without intermediate forms.

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



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

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



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




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



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

Yout cutting and pasting is always stolen from ID’ creationer blogs and hyper-religious loons such as Henry Morris. You steal terms such as “sudden appearance” completely oblivious to the fact that biological evolution often occurs over geologic timeframes. Hint: we’re talking about timeframes in excess of 6,000 years.

 

[Leo123]

Ask your charlatans at the Disco’tute to present their data regarding the magical, godly creation of the earth 6,000 years ago.


It’s in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

It’s obvious why you chose to cut and paste the above without attribution because you stole it from another ID’iot creationer blogs.



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.”

Yout cutting and pasting is always stolen from ID’ creationer blogs and hyper-religious loons such as Henry Morris. You steal terms such as “sudden appearance” completely oblivious to the fact that biological evolution often occurs over geologic timeframes. Hint: we’re talking about timeframes in excess of 6,000 years.

Biological evolution is is the result of life. It can't create life. ll

 

[scruffy]

Biological evolution is is the result of life.

No it isn't.

It's a set of rules that operate on another set of rules.

It can't create life. ll

Yes it can, and it does.

Evolution has created MILLIONS of life forms in the short time earth has been in existence.

God does not poof life forms into existence. He doesn't operate that way. He uses evolution to get what He wants.

How dare you second guess God. You're nowhere near smart enough to do that.