Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

PoliticalChic said:

• 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


AGAIN (11, 12, 13?)
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.
[......]

Have a Nice Page.
`

 

[Hollie]

Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

“The Bible says so”. As you know, your Koran is authentic. Why pound your Bible?

 

[Hollie]

Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

Actually, Palmer wrote about the errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods in the Bible. Study your koranology if you want an accurate view of geologic history.

It’s true. Mo’ said so.

 

[Hollie]

Is that what I 'claim'?

You should read more carefully.

• 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

Well… as long as the Charlatan, Meyer, said so.

Sheesh, but you hyper-religious loons are a laughable joke.

Why is it important to try and fool the gullible that your Koran is true?

 

[Hollie]

You need another spanking?

You came to the right place.....

AI Overview
Learn more


The Royal Society is the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences and the world's oldest national scientific institution:

• Purpose
  The Royal Society's mission is to promote excellence in science and use it to benefit humanity.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Let me know when you need another custard pie smashed in your ugly kisser.

As usual, when your cutting and pasting is shown to be your usual collection of cut and paste trash, you resort to schoolboy rhetoric.

 

[Leo123]

No it isn't.

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



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.

Changing the subject again and making false claims about what I post is cowardly.

 

[scruffy]

Changing the subject again and making false claims about what I post is cowardly.

So stop doing it

 

[Leo123]

So stop doing it

The subject is the origin of life. I have been consistent in that. You claim that the first life came from organized molecules but you fail to say what or who did that organization.

 

[scruffy]

The subject is the origin of life.

No, it isn't.

The subject as stated by the OP is Darwinian evolution and it's misuse for political purposes.

Neither of those things has anything to do with the origin of life.

I have been consistent in that.

Yes, you have.

You claim that the first life came from organized molecules but you fail to say what or who did that organization.

I stated that life is a continuum and equates with the universal energy.

I stated that life is a combinatorial explosion of that same energy, guided by dynamics.

I stated (or implied) that the rules of physics are the same as the rules of life. I stated there's no difference.

You have yet to wrap your mind around this concept. Which is okay, because it's not an easy concept. Especially for the layman, but even for the expert.

I never used the word "first". That's your word, not mine. If you understand the concept, there is no "first". What came "first" is a wrong and nonsensical question. I stated explicitly that life is a continuum and creation is happening TODAY and continually. Which is a totally different concept from "first".

What is confusing you is you're stuck in an old and outdated model of evolution. You're stuck on Darwin, and Darwin is dead. I said that too. I said that Darwin was wrong, that survival occurs on the basis of niche dynamics, not fitness. Fitness is an incorrect interpretation of niche dynamics.

"First" is the wrong question. You should be asking about niche stability. Niches are dynamics, and to understand dynamics you need a math education, at least equivalent to an engineering degree. Including partial differential equations and control systems theory. If you have that, you can probably figure out the stochastic parts.

Evolution is not for the meek. It's not for the Tours of the world that don't even understand hydrolysis. You stand a SMALL chance of understanding evolution if you know enough math to handle special relativity. You need Riemann and Poincare and Felix Klein. You need some topology and for sure you need change of coordinates on high dimensional curved surfaces. Once you understand these things, you will understand how silly the concept of "first" is.

There is no first. Life is a set of rules built on another set of rules, just like coordinate changes on a curved manifold. You may or may not get symmetries to make your mathematical life easier, but in any case you'll need to understand the Einstein notation for tensors, which you can learn on YouTube using the links I provided.

Learn these things, then come back and give us your opinion about how God works.

 

[Leo123]

No, it isn't.

The subject as stated by the OP is Darwinian evolution and it's misuse for political purposes.

Neither of those things has anything to do with the origin of life.



Yes, you have.



I stated that life is a continuum and equates with the universal energy.

I stated that life is a combinatorial explosion of that same energy, guided by dynamics.

I stated (or implied) that the rules of physics are the same as the rules of life. I stated there's no difference.

You have yet to wrap your mind around this concept. Which is okay, because it's not an easy concept. Especially for the layman, but even for the expert.

I never used the word "first". That's your word, not mine. If you understand the concept, there is no "first". What came "first" is a wrong and nonsensical question. I stated explicitly that life is a continuum and creation is happening TODAY and continually. Which is a totally different concept from "first".

What is confusing you is you're stuck in an old and outdated model of evolution. You're stuck on Darwin, and Darwin is dead. I said that too. I said that Darwin was wrong, that survival occurs on the basis of niche dynamics, not fitness. Fitness is an incorrect interpretation of niche dynamics.

"First" is the wrong question. You should be asking about niche stability. Niches are dynamics, and to understand dynamics you need a math education, at least equivalent to an engineering degree. Including partial differential equations and control systems theory. If you have that, you can probably figure out the stochastic parts.

Evolution is not for the meek. It's not for the Tours of the world that don't even understand hydrolysis. You stand a SMALL chance of understanding evolution if you know enough math to handle special relativity. You need Riemann and Poincare and Felix Klein. You need some topology and for sure you need change of coordinates on high dimensional curved surfaces. Once you understand these things, you will understand how silly the concept of "first" is.

There is no first. Life is a set of rules built on another set of rules, just like coordinate changes on a curved manifold. You may or may not get symmetries to make your mathematical life easier, but in any case you'll need to understand the Einstein notation for tensors, which you can learn on YouTube using the links I provided.

Learn these things, then come back and give us your opinion about how God works.

No, read it again, the Subject is "Blowing Up Darwin" nor anything about politics or misusing anything. You've just made that up. The definition of life is a living cell. Whether or not life is a continuum equating to universal energy is not what is being discussed.

Bottom line: We cannot take only elements, throw them together and create a living cell.

 

[scruffy]

No, read it again, the Subject is "Blowing Up Darwin" nor anything about politics or misusing anything. You've just made that up. The definition of life is a living cell. Whether or not life is a continuum equating to universal energy is not what is being discussed.

Bottom line: We cannot take only elements, throw them together and create a living cell.

Sigh.

Let me set you straight.

Read this carefully it's only a paragraph long. You can reference the entire paper from the link.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

This is mid-80's, right around the time the bullshit propaganda from the ID crowd started floating around.

Let's go over it sentence by sentence.

There are physical systems large enough so that a statistical description is needed but not necessarily so large that fluctuations may be ignored.

That describes biological systems.

We introduce a general framework for such systems based on assuming that the system's evolution defines a Markov process occurring in a manifold of physical states.

This references a random walk, which includes the mutations that occur during cell division.

Do you know what an indel is? It's different from a point mutation. Indel stands for "insertion or deletion", which means a frame shift. In a point mutation, you just get one amino acid instead of another, but the rest of your protein remains intact. But with an indel the entire rest of your protein is completely messed up - you end up with a different protein.

A single system is described by its state-manifold M and three fields thereon: the entropy-scalar s, the diffusion tensor Kab, and the vector of non-diffusive evolution ua.

The state manifold is the curved surface I was referring to. The entropy scalar is what mathematicians call a "field", which you will learn about when you study dynamics. (A simple example is temperature, which is a scalar but is represented as a "field" on a surface). The diffusion tensor (as in the reaction-diffusion chemistry I talked about) is why you need to understand Einstein's tensor notation - otherwise you end up with gazillions of annoying summation symbols in your math. And the vector of evolution is the "tangent" to your system trajectory.

So what they're talking about here, is a random walk on a curved surface that is subject to a "field", which you can look at as a function (or flow) over the surface. This is why you need to understand dynamics, things like LaPlace's equation. Here though, it's more than just ordinary dynamics, it's "stochastic" dynamics which means you need the Langevin calculus because your differential equations are stichastic. "x" is a random variable, and "dx" is a Wiener process.

This math describes "a" trajectory through a biological evolution pathway, based on the action of a field of possible mutations and the distances to the next outcome.

The second law of thermodynamics holds if and only if ua is a symmetry of s.

You know what the Second Law is. What they're saying is that a "smooth" trajectory only happens in certain ways, you have to carve a symmetric path through the mutation field of you want your entropy to be continuous. Entropy is information content, you can calculate the entropy from the DNA sequence.

Detailed balance holds if and only if ua vanishes.

"Balance" means your post-mutstion state is the same as your pre-mutstion state. They're stating the obvious. In balance, your state vector doesn't move.

In the macroscopic limit where fluctuations disappear one obtains a general framework for irreversible thermodynamics (of isolated systems); and in that limit the equations of motion are derived from a variational principle.

This is a mouthful, but they're saying you can DERIVE the trajectory by using the methods of variational calculus. Which is a big deal when your system consists of random motions. This is the primary contribution of The paper, it gives us a method for formulating the "expectation" (probability) of a trajectory.

The meaning of the concepts introduced is illustrated by means of an analysis in some detail of Brownian motion and the “Langevin process”.

So there you have it. If you can understand this paper, you will be in a position to CALCULATE how biological systems can evolve. You will be able to predict the likelihood that they'll evolve in certain ways, which is to say, follow certain evolutionary paths or trajectories.

So you see, the "specific" trajectory doesn't really matter, it's just a random path through a probability space. What matters is the shape of the space and the pattern of the field that flows over it.

In a way, this type of analysis is much like fluid dynamics, or predicting the weather. You can't really do it "exactly" but you can describe the general patterns to be expected.

There's only one gotcha in this paper. It only deals with Markov processes, which means generators without memory. Unfortunately, DNA has memory. The transition probabilities depend on the previous states and the paths that got them there. So the real picture is a tad more complex, you have nonlinear terms in your generator. Which you can still do math with, but it's a little harder.

To get a feel for how to generate the phase space from a nonlinear system, you can watch this video and try to imagine what happens when x is a random variable.

 

[scruffy]

So the video illustrates the concept of a "tangent" to a trajectory, which in this case is the velocity dx/dt. Actually this video is very close to the "game of life" we discussed earlier. The stable center is where the populations of foxes and chickens vary smoothly (usually in a "cycle" which is where the trajectory goes round and round), and the unstable saddle is one of the catastrophes I mentioned.

Now, we can take this dynamic and apply it in the context where x is a random variable. So what do you think will happen, if at any given time there is a mutation in the chicken population and some of the chickens die off? Well, there will be a discontinuous "jump" along the trajectory, right? You're going to instantly move from one place in the orbit to another, and then continue from this new location. To draw this, you need a "field" that represents the probability of moving from one point to any other point. Thus your equation for that motion, becomes a tensor.

But what happens if the mutation is severe, and results in carnivorous chickens that start eating foxes instead of corn? Now the core of your dynamic changes. Your original equation changes, and your Jacobian changes which means your eigenvectors and eigenvalues change too - which then means that the entire picture of your phase plane changes, including the trajectories.

You can think of this like the phase drawing becoming a movie. Instead of one phase diagram that's good for all time, we now have a phase diagram that depends on time. In other words, the shape of your surface changes with time. You can see what this might do to your trajectories, in the following video:



Here you can see that both the amount and speed of the population cycle will change, and not only that, you'll start getting "kinks" in the cycle.

This math by the way, is exactly the same for masses on springs, animals in a population, and photons in the Schrodinger equation.

So what happens in the random case, is we have to use a slightly different type of calculus to draw the phase portrait. In the simple case it's called Langevin calculus, because it's used to solve the Langevin equation.

Langevin equation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In more complex cases where we have to use the method of variations, it's called the Malliavin calculus.

Malliavin calculus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The point of all these calculuses is the same - we have to be able to calculate derivatives and integrals, because those are what make up the dynamics. Specifically we need to be able to calculate the Jacobian matrix in order to solve LaPlace's equation (with and without a forcing function). In genetics, this is called a "niche" and the forcing function determines the location and shape of the attractor.

In the previous video (nonlinear but non-stochastic), the trajectory of the round-and-round fixed point is called a "limit cycle", whereas when it turns into a spiral the attractor becomes a point. The idea is, no matter where your system starts, it will always end up at that point. There are also unstable attractors that spiral "away" from a point, and when you have concentric limit cycles a random walk allows you to jump between them.

 

[scruffy]

For an introduction to tensors, go to this series by eigenchris (this is part 1 of a 16 part series):



Video #4 in the series is enormously important, you will learn what "covectors" are and you will immediately see the relationship to level sets in the phase diagrams.

So let's say we have some small pieces of DNA called "transcription factors", and let's say they all control the same gene. We can write an equation for the amount of the gene that's being expressed, as a function of the transcription factors.

So g = f(t1) + g(t2) + h(t3) and so on for as many tf's as needed.

But since these are transcription factors we also have

t1 = a(t2) + b(t3) + ...
t2 = c(t1) + d(t3) + ...
...

which we can write in matrix form with 0's on the diagonal.

For this system of coupled equations we will often have complex roots, which means our solution will oscillate. There will be periods with more gene expression, and periods with less. This is how we get genes to express themselves during development and again in old age.

You don't need a course in complex analysis to understand the complex solutions, you'll learn everything you need to know from the quadratic formula in dynamics, and Euler's equation. What's important is that you understand

e^i€ = cos(€) + i sin(€)

Because e^i€ is a solution for most of your coupled equations. Most of the genetic equations are pretty simple, you don't need LaPlace transforms or Fourier transforms to solve them. However you need to be solid with the linear algebra, and you need to know about tensors because many of the genetic equations go up into 5 or 6 or 7 dimensions.

So for example, let's say we have a surface defined by the concentrations of tf1 and tf2, and we want to know how tf3 acts on that. Well, we can represent the influence as a "field", which is a vector at every point in the tf1-tf2 plane. Then if we add tf4 we can change coordinates to get a new influence map. If the underlying gene is a promoter for yet another gene, we can transform the tf3 field using a tensor, and thereby arrive at the influence of each transcription factor on the underlying gene. It sounds a lot more complicated than it is. It's really pretty easy. But you need the math background for the oddball cases, which sometimes can get a little hairy.

The oddball cases would include things like indels caused by histones that don't fully unwind the DNA for a polymerase. If you have tf's controlling the histone you want to know the odds of an indel in the underlying gene when a tf goes south.

 

[Hollie]

No, read it again, the Subject is "Blowing Up Darwin" nor anything about politics or misusing anything. You've just made that up. The definition of life is a living cell. Whether or not life is a continuum equating to universal energy is not what is being discussed.

Bottom line: We cannot take only elements, throw them together and create a living cell.

The subject is really religious extremism on the part of the OP.

 

[Hollie]

You need another spanking?

You came to the right place.....

AI Overview
Learn more


The Royal Society is the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences and the world's oldest national scientific institution:

• Purpose
  The Royal Society's mission is to promote excellence in science and use it to benefit humanity.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Let me know when you need another custard pie smashed in your ugly kisser.

So, obviously, no. You can’t offer anything but your usual cutting and pasting.

The age of the “Royal Society” means nothing in terms of their ability to understand science matters.

Your hyper-religionism is a pathology to use to justify spamming threads with cut and paste fraud.

 

[Hollie]

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.”

As usual, your religious extremism is the cause of your fears, superstition and ignorance. Biological evolution makes no statements about any gods, to include your various gods.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Bible itself says we are gods.

Both testaments.



Horseshit. Darwin was not an atheist.



The "last" creation?

lmao

What a stupid attempt to save face.

Your posts used to be far better.



No, the Bible does not say that humans are gods:

• Psalm 82:6
  In this psalm, the Lord says, "I have said, 'You are gods; and all of you are children of the most High'". However, the use of the word "gods" in this verse is a metaphor. The psalm is a warning to unjust leaders who consider themselves gods, but who are actually ignorant and walk in darkness.
  
  
• Jesus's use of Psalm 82:6
  In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 in response to Jewish leaders who accuse him of blasphemy. Jesus uses the passage to expose the ignorance and inconsistency of his accusers. He asks why he is blaspheming by claiming to be God's Son, when human rulers are called gods.
  
  
• God's nature
  God is God alone, and humans are not divine. Humans are not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, or self-existent.
  

 

[Moonglow]

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.”

Both religion and Darwin don't really know they just guess at it.

 

[Moonglow]

Speaking of credibility.......did you believe all of these also?




There are sooooo very many lies on which the Left's politics and promises are built.
One can take his pick....that there is systemic racism, the election was fair, illegals don't vote, gun control is aimed at criminals, CRT isn't taught in government school, welfare stops starvation, the Democrat's flipped and the Republicans became the party of racism, Nazis were rightwing, Liberals founded this nation, Hillary is the smartest woman in the country and Bill Clinton ever had a budget surplus, women have a right to kill their unborn, women get paid less for the same job.....and "1 in 5 women being sexually assaulted while in college."



Democrats lie about everything….on what basis would any of their fabricated data be considered valid???
Here the prism through which every Democrat pronouncement should be viewed: First collusion, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia, Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction. Racist, Racist, Racist, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Recession, Recession, Recession, Emoluments, 25th amendment, “HandsUpDon’tShoot,”Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the Kavanaugh hoax, the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ General Flynn perjury trap, no evidence of voter fraud in the stolen election.....and “More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son."



Don’t forget the Democrats told you that Trump was colluding with Russia…and that wasn’t true. They also told you that so was Naval Academy grad Carter Page and so was George Papadopoulos and so was General Michael Flynn, a three star general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency….and all of that was a lie. How stupid must one be to keep believing what they say?
...and, and that ‘armed insurrection’ that never occurred, and AOC lying about her near-death experience in the Capitol Riots.....when she wasn't even in the Capitol. And, of course the 275 Democrat inspired riots were ‘mostly peaceful.’

And that Biden voters as agents provocateur weren't behind the Capitol Riot.....and that Pelosi knew and refused to allow extra security. They lie about everything.......yet Democrat voters are, ready to swallow the next lie.

And that the Wuhan Red Death did not come from a Chinese Communist lab that got its funding via Dr. Fauci, and its purpose was to remove Trump….

FakeStories: Three years of Russian Collusion stories; altering documents at the DoJ and FBI to railroad political opponents; the state media burying the Hunter Biden Scandal what with Joe getting 10% of the bribes; stories about Kavanaugh rape parties, and Covington Catholic School; Carter Page working for Russia when he was actually working for the CIA….where were those ‘fact checkers’? The great lie that there was an ‘insurrection’ January 6th. The lie that it was Republicans who wanted to defund the police. The lie that Critical Race Theory wasn’t being taught. The lie that 600,000 died from the Wuhan Red Death.
What should you do when they lied to you at least these 30 times already???????????

Democrats claimed it was Republicans who demanded defunding the police, AOC claimed ten people were killed Jan6th, Ilhan Omar blames the police for crime, they claimed that CRT wasn’t being taught in government school, men can become pregnant, and MAGA fans attacked Jussie Smollett, inflation due to Putin and the invasion…

• Brett Kavanaugh — Serial Rapist
• President Michael Avenatti
• The Covington KKKids Hoax
• Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
• George Zimmerman
• Mostly Peaceful Black Lives Matter Riots
• The Russia Collusion Hoax
• Antifa Stormed the Beaches on D-Day
• Cuomo (D-NY): King of Coronavirus Competence
• The Clearing of Lafayette Square Hoax
• The Lab Leak Theory Has Been Debunked Hoax
• The Russians Are Behind Hunter’s Laptop Hoax
• The Russian Bounty Hoax
• The Capitol Police Officer Killed with a Fire Extinguisher Hoax
• The Very Fine People Hoax
• Men Can Magically Transform into Women
• And on and on and on…

…what is the point of watching any corporate media outlet? All they do is lie. Even if you are an NPR wine mom, you do not want to be serially lied to.
The era of corporate media influence is ending thanks to the over the top bias, and that should be good for the future. Americans are rebelling against these exposed frauds, and 2022 should be a turning point."
Mark Simone 710




And you believe Darwinian evolution as well?



See the pattern?

The GOP once claimed to be the Party of God...

 

[PoliticalChic]

More than interesting is the fact that the Royal Sociey conference was not about defending Darwin's thesis.


"Much debate at the conference centered around the question of whether these new mechanisms could be incorporated into the basic population genetics framework of neo-Darwinism, thus making possible a new “extended” evolutionary synthesis, or whether the emphasis on new mechanisms of evolutionary change represented a radical, and theoretically incommensurable, break with established theory.

This largely semantic, or classificatory, issue obscured a deeper question that few, if any, of the presentations confronted head on: the issue of the origin of genuine phenotypic novelty — the problem that Müller described in his opening talk."

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

Suddenly real scientific criticism of Darwin's theory comes to the fore and makes it difficult to claim it is a proven fact.