Blowing Up Darwin

[Rigby5]

Darwin knew he had a big problem. The complexity of the working eye.

That and the fact that his dead daughter kept following him around...

There is nothing remotely problematic to evolution concerning the complexity of the "working eye".
There are plenty of example in nature of other organisms who still have different earlier stages of how the eye evolves, proving exactly how it happened.

{...
Many scientists have found the evolution of the eye attractive to study because the eye distinctively exemplifies an analogous organ found in many animal forms. Simple light detection is found in bacteria, single-celled organisms, plants and animals. Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently several times.[1]

Diverse eyes are known from the Burgess shale of the Middle Cambrian, and from the slightly older Emu Bay Shale.[2] Eyes vary in their visual acuity, the range of wavelengths they can detect, their sensitivity in no light, their ability to detect motion or to resolve objects, and whether they can discriminate colours.
...}
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is nothing remotely problematic to evolution concerning the complexity of the "working eye".

There sure isn't.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

No "pattern" at all.
Those are all totally unrelated.
Why were there simpler organisms at first, and why did they all slowly become more complex and different organisms over time, if not from evolution?
Are you claiming that god created all the millions of different species over time?
Why would a god do that?

 

[Dante]

No they haven't.


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

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

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


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

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

Science Denial Alert!

 

[Dante]

No they haven't.


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

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

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


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

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

your link: Oh My! It speaks of Evolution. No denial of Evolution here.
_________________________________________________________________________


An insider's provocative account of one of the most contentious debates in science today
When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, two of the world's leading evolutionary theorists, proposed a bold new theory of evolution—the theory of "punctuated equilibria"—they stood the standard interpretation of Darwin on its head. They also ignited a furious debate about the true nature of evolution.

On the one side are the geneticists. They contend that evolution proceeds slowly but surely, driven by competition among organisms to transmit their genes from generation to generation. On the other are the paleontologists, like Eldredge and Gould, who show in the fossil record that in fact evolution proceeds only sporadically. Long periods of no change—equilibria—are "punctuated" by episodes of rapid evolutionary activity. According to the paleontologists, this pattern shows that evolution is driven far more by environmental forces than by genetic competition.

How can the prevailing views on evolution be so different? In Reinventing Darwin, Niles Eldredge offers a spirited account of the dispute and an impressive case for the paleontologists' side of the story. With the mastery that only a leading contributor to the debate can provide, he charts the course of theory from Darwin's day to the present and explores the fundamental mysteries and crucial questions that underlie the current quarrels.

Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory / Edition 1|Hardcover

An insider's provocative account of one of the most contentious debates in science today When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, two of the world's leading evolutionary theorists, proposed a bold new theory of evolution—the theory of "punctuated equilibria"—they stood the...

www.barnesandnoble.com

 

[Dante]

Evolution. There is no disagreement on Evolution vs the Biblical Nonsense.

It's all about: Evolution.

Evolution: It's all about the science.

PoliticalChic 's linked to book:

Overview​

An insider's provocative account of one of the most contentious debates in science today
When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, two of the world's leading evolutionary theorists, proposed a bold new theory of evolution—the theory of "punctuated equilibria"—they stood the standard interpretation of Darwin on its head. They also ignited a furious debate about the true nature of evolution.

On the one side are the geneticists. They contend that evolution proceeds slowly but surely, driven by competition among organisms to transmit their genes from generation to generation. On the other are the paleontologists, like Eldredge and Gould, who show in the fossil record that in fact evolution proceeds only sporadically. Long periods of no change—equilibria—are "punctuated" by episodes of rapid evolutionary activity. According to the paleontologists, this pattern shows that evolution is driven far more by environmental forces than by genetic competition.

How can the prevailing views on evolution be so different? In Reinventing Darwin, Niles Eldredge offers a spirited account of the dispute and an impressive case for the paleontologists' side of the story. With the mastery that only a leading contributor to the debate can provide, he charts the course of theory from Darwin's day to the present and explores the fundamental mysteries and crucial questions that underlie the current quarrels.

Is evolution fired by a gentle and persistent motor and fueled by the survival instincts of "selfish genes"? Or does it proceed in fits and starts, as the fossil record seems to show? What is the role of environmental changes such as habitat destruction and of cataclysmic events like meteor impacts? Are most species inherently stable, changing only very little until they succumb to extinction? Or are species highly adaptable, changing all the time?

Eldredge sorts through the major findings and interpretations and presents a lively introduction to the leading edge of evolutionary theory today. Reinventing Darwin offers a rare insider's view of the sometimes contentious, but always stimulating work of scientific inquiry.

PRAISE FOR NILES ELDREDGE'S PREVIOUS BOOKS

The Miner's Canary: Unraveling the Mysteries of Extinction

"The Miner's Canary rings with integrity. The author takes care to present opposing views. Some readers, indeed, might view Mr. Eldredge as a little too self-effacing; he is, after all, one of the world's leading experts in his field."—The New York Times Book Review

Fossils: The Evolution and Extinction of Species

". . . an important and informative book. It is also delightfully idiosyncratic. This is no scholarly treatise defending academic argument. It is an essay for everyone interested in the story of earthly life."—The Christian Science Monitor

Life Pulse: Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record

"This is Earth history on a grand scale; those who enjoy the works of Stephen Jay Gould will appreciate Life Pulse."—Publishers Weekly

 

[Rigby5]

"Matter has always existed; it never had a beginning. You have to accept that possibility if you preach the same thing about God."


Einstein proved the very opposite.


That's the reason for the Big Bang, now accepted by all scientists......just not you.



AI Overview
Learn more

In the context of the Big Bang Theory, "redshift" refers to the observation that light from distant galaxies appears shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, indicating that these galaxies are moving away from us, which is considered strong evidence for an expanding universe as predicted by the Big Bang theory; essentially, as space itself expands, the light waves stretch out, causing the redshift.



Prior to that there was nothing.....no matter of any sort.


Explanation?


God.

Wrong.
The current theories are that black holes merge until they create a whole new universe.
So the Big Bang did not come from nothing, but a super black hole in another universe.

{...
To truly answer the question of how something could arise from nothing, we would need to explain the quantum state of the entire Universe at the beginning of the Planck epoch. All attempts to do this remain highly speculative. Some of them appeal to supernatural forces like a designer. But other candidate explanations remain within the realm of physics – such as a multiverse, which contains an infinite number of parallel universes, or cyclical models of the Universe, being born and reborn again.

The 2020 Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose proposed one intriguing but controversial model for a cyclical universe dubbed "conformal cyclic cosmology". Penrose was inspired by an interesting mathematical connection between a very hot, dense, small state of the Universe – as it was at the Big Bang – and an extremely cold, empty, expanded state of the Universe – as it will be in the far future. His radical theory to explain this correspondence is that those states become mathematically identical when taken to their limits. Paradoxical though it might seem, a total absence of matter might have managed to give rise to all the matter we see around us in our Universe.

In this view, the Big Bang arises from an almost nothing. That's what's left over when all the matter in a universe has been consumed into black holes, which have in turn boiled away into photons – lost in a void. The whole universe thus arises from something that – viewed from another physical perspective – is as close as one can get to nothing at all. But that nothing is still a kind of something. It is still a physical universe, however empty.
...}
What existed before the Big Bang?

 

[Rigby5]

Did you believe every one of them?

That's why you accept Darwin's evidence-lacking theory.

Dawin's explanation does not at all lack evidence.
All fossil records show evolution.
Every single one.
They all slightly differ over time.

 

[scruffy]

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.

You can't just ascribe everything you don't understand to God.

It's a better policy to try to understand how God works.

There's a woman at Stanford, her name is Monika Schleier, she creates stuff "over there" by manipulating spacetime "over here". You should check her out, it's fascinating research. Last I heard she was using lasers and rubidium atoms, but she might have new methods by now.

 

[Rigby5]

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

AI Overview
Learn more


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

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

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

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

No, these are not weaknesses of Darwin's explanation.

Mass extinctions are obviously caused by changes in the environment that are too rapid for evolution to adapt to, such as meteorites causing massive cooling of the planet.

Species can not normally be diverse since mates select for similarity. Diversity can only happen when population are so low that mating can no longer be very selective.

Biotic interaction is the main cause of extinctions, through over predation, epidemics, competition, etc.

The age if the earth is irrelevant since the time before the earth could support life, is irrelevant to biology.

Speciation is observed all the time. It is seen not only in lab microbes, but domestic animals. All that is required for speciation, is for current breeds to no longer be able to produce offspring even though their ancestors were capable of cross breeding.

Land animals evolving from aquatic animals is common, and we see it with various swamp fish all the time, that can cross dry land for periods of time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

Let's check.

1. There is no biological nor chemical theory or experiment that explains first life from primordial chemicals. None.

2. There is no fossil record that document one species becoming another.


3. There are proven and documented fossil records that document sudden and complete new species without any intermediate.


4. You learned your biology, and acceptance of whatever is told you, in government school, didn't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

Who'd you vote for?

 

[scruffy]

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



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

Fossils are so yesterday.

Today we're creating brand new life forms in the lab from scratch.

Brand new species, that never existed before.

No one cares about Darwin or Marx anymore. We're trying to figure out how to survive in space, stuff like that.

Second guessing God is kinda arrogant, don't you think?

 

[Crepitus]

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.”

 

[Rigby5]

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

A number of evolutionists are admitted Marxists.



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

And the folks advancing it are admitted Marxists.

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

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

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

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

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

That is silly because Marx does not deny or have anything at all to do with religion.
All Marxism is about is creating a true democratic republic where the wealthy elite do not extort the rest of us.

For example, Putin is a Marxist and regular member of the Orthodox Church.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bones rapidly decompose.

Where fossil records exist, they defeat Darwin's theory.


The experts say so.


a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

False.

 

[scruffy]

Let's check.

1. There is no biological nor chemical theory or experiment that explains first life from primordial chemicals. None.

Yes there is. There's lots of them.

2. There is no fossil record that document one species becoming another.

So?

We create new species in the lab now.

Fossils schmossils.

3. There are proven and documented fossil records that document sudden and complete new species without any intermediate.

How come there are microbes on asteroids?

4. You learned your biology, and acceptance of whatever is told you, in government school, didn't you?

No, I have an Ivy League education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be wrong.

"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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No "pattern" at all.
Those are all totally unrelated.
Why were there simpler organisms at first, and why did they all slowly become more complex and different organisms over time, if not from evolution?
Are you claiming that god created all the millions of different species over time?
Why would a god do that?

The pattern is that you have been trained to believe and worship anything the Leftists tell you.

Your posts in this thread are proof.