Blowing Up Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

Science Denial Alert!

Why are you slaves so fearful of questioning anything your masters feed you?

 

[otto105]

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.”

Fuckup

The fossil record is very clear.

 

[Rigby5]

100% correct.

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

Not necessarily.
If you have the right primordial soup, multiple life could have been possible.
However, the current theory actually is that life on earth was seeded from Mars.

{...

Life May Have Been More Likely to Originate on Mars Than on Earth​

The environmental setting makes all the difference.
Dirk Schulze-Makuch
June 18, 2021

A renowned international team of researchers led by Benton Clark from the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, recently looked into one of the key questions in astrobiology—whether life is likely to have arisen on Mars. Their analysis, published in the journal Life, is the most comprehensive assessment of that question I’ve seen to date, and is based not only on current thinking about how life originates, but also on the latest results from the Mars rover investigations.

Their conclusion: The chances that life arose on Mars are at least as high as they were on Earth, because the requirements—as we currently understand them—were all there, including liquid water, organic compounds, essential elements and minerals, and access to energy sources.

The authors give several reasons why the chances of life starting up on the Red Planet might actually have been higher than on Earth: (1) Mars should have received a higher influx of organic material from impacting asteroids and comets; (2) Sulfur, an important element for biology, is more common on Mars; (3) Mars had a head-start for the origin of life, because Earth was hit by a large impactor that created the Moon just 20 to 100 million years after our planet formed, which certainly sterilized the surface; (4) Mars experienced many wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles, which are critical for concentrating organic compounds. In fact, these cycles were likely more common on the Red Planet early in its history. While 95 percent of Earth’s land was submerged under oceans, only five percent of Mars was, meaning that Mars would have had three times more land area despite its smaller size.

Wet-dry cycles and freeze-thaw cycles occur best if there is exposure to air, which favors the “hydrothermal pond” scenario for life’s origin. But if life on Earth began on the ocean floor, as some researchers have suggested, it would have been less likely to arise on Mars. That’s not to say there were no opportunities at all. For example, the Nili Fossae region on Mars is considered by some researchers to have been similar to the “Lost City” hydrothermal field in the Atlantic Ocean. And there are still other scenarios for the origin of life—under cold conditions or in salty brines, which both have the potential to concentrate organic compounds. Either of these would again favor Mars, given its much colder environment and the ubiquitous presence of brines.
...}
Life May Have Been More Likely to Originate on Mars Than on Earth

This is just one of many articles on how we know some meteorites came from Mars, and that life may have some with them. Nation Geographic also has articles on this, but you need to be a member to read it online.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

My disagreement is not in any attempt to explain life on earth, it is to prove that Darwin's version fails the tests of science.


As I have documented.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Moths do not change until they no longer are very successful, they are forced to inbreed, and minority mutations are capable of then taking over the entire species.
What they will change into depends on what causes them to no longer be so successful.
A successful species will not evolve very likely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

There was no matter in the universe prior to the big bang.


Before the hot Big Bang occurred, our Universe was expanding at an enormous and relentless rate. Instead of being dominated by matter and radiation, our cosmos was dominated by the field energy of inflation: just like today's dark energy, but many orders of magnitude greater in strength and expansion speed.Jul 27, 2023

Our Universe wasn't empty, even before the Big Bang​

Big Think
https://bigthink.com › starts-with-a-bang › universe-was...

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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]

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]

Why are you slaves so fearful of questioning anything your masters feed you?

Everyone questioned Darwin's evolution for decades until finally no one could find anything to complain about or any alternative theory.
God does not work as an alternative, since that would mean he could have gotten it right from the start, but instead spent hundreds of millions of years creating transitional species for no apparent reason.

 

[Rigby5]

My disagreement is not in any attempt to explain life on earth, it is to prove that Darwin's version fails the tests of science.


As I have documented.

Darwin's version fits science perfectly.
That is no other explanation that does the fossil record that shows slow evolution at work so universally.
Not once did any species ever just pop up out of nowhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Funny, before Einstein, the view of science was that the universe and matter always existed.

After Einstein, the red shift, the big bang.......suddenly Genesis was correct.


Speaking of Genesis......science today conforms to the order of events in Genesis

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.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for 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. 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. 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.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

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


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Based upon a dialectical-materialist understanding of humanity's place in nature, Marxist–Leninist atheism proposes that religion is the opium of the people; thus, Marxism–Leninism advocates atheism, rather than religious belief.

Marxist–Leninist atheism - Wikipedia​

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Marxist–Leninist_athei...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fuckup

The fossil record is very clear.

No vulgarity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everyone questioned Darwin's evolution for decades until finally no one could find anything to complain about or any alternative theory.
God does not work as an alternative, since that would mean he could have gotten it right from the start, but instead spent hundreds of millions of years creating transitional species for no apparent reason.

This was the basis of my postings:
Be sure to get back to me when
a. you can provide proof of Darwin's thesis, and when you cannot, explain why government school teaches it as though it was a proven fact

b. you can explain Karl Marx's joy at the publication of 'On The Origin Of Species.'


But.....conjecture as to the basis of life on earth would certainly make interesting reading.

You might like Hoyle's:
"Panspermia (from Ancient Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning 'all', and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning 'seed') is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by space dust,[1] meteoroids,[2] asteroids, comets,[3] planetoids,[4] and also by spacecraft carrying unintended contamination by microorganisms.[5][6][7] Distribution may have occurred spanning galaxies, and so may not be restricted to the limited scale of solar systems.[8][9] "

Panspermia - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

Moths do not change until they no longer are very successful, they are forced to inbreed, and minority mutations are capable of then taking over the entire species.
What they will change into depends on what causes them to no longer be so successful.
A successful species will not evolve very likely.

The most famous example of Darwinian evolution given in high school is false : the English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived.

Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring. Nor were the two colored variants considered different species......so why the obfuscation of evolution with adaptation?

Why are Liberals so dumb????
Same question: why are they so easily manipulated by their masters?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's version fits science perfectly.
That is no other explanation that does the fossil record that shows slow evolution at work so universally.
Not once did any species ever just pop up out of nowhere.

Fits Marxism perfectly.

Science, not so much.

It is nothing but conjecture, and has never been proven.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is totally untrue.
No organism has ever show "stasis".
Even humans in the last 10k years have become much taller, living longer, etc., and it is not environmental.
It is natural selection where the taller ones are more successful.
There is not a single species that did not evolve, even though some like the sea sponge, did not change very much.
The "episodic nature of evolutionary change" simply means that when a species is successful, there is no pressure to mate with mutations and a species evolution will greatly slow down.

No species has ever just "appeared at once, fully formed".
All species show slow periodic evolution.

All species show continuity. The closest you can get to discontinuity is that when a species does well, evolutionary change becomes very difficult and slow. But you can easily accelerate evolution by any reduction of the gene pool.

No one should expect it to be easy to find the transitional member between species, since species only go through rapid evolution when unsuccessful, low in number, and forced to inbreed. You are not going to find a lot of fossils for species on the verge of extinction. But we have found enough to prove that is true.

The big bang emergence of new species is exactly what we expect, since a failing species will be low in number until they inbreed with mutations enough to create a more successful species that will rapidly proliferate.

 

[Rigby5]

The most famous example of Darwinian evolution given in high school is false : the English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived.

Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring. Nor were the two colored variants considered different species......so why the obfuscation of evolution with adaptation?

Why are Liberals so dumb????
Same question: why are they so easily manipulated by their masters?

The pepper moth is NEVER given as an example of evolution, but just natural selection, which is only part of evolution. The fact both the white and black versions already exist is proof that mutations already cause the divergence.

It is NOT "adaptation".
The meaning of "adaptation" is that a white moth changed into a black moth, and that never happened.
Long ago a white moth had black moth offspring due to mutation.
The white moths simply lost out to the black moth, and did not change into them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is totally untrue.
No organism has ever show "stasis".
Even humans in the last 10k years have become much taller, living longer, etc., and it is not environmental.
It is natural selection where the taller ones are more successful.
There is not a single species that did not evolve, even though some like the sea sponge, did not change very much.
The "episodic nature of evolutionary change" simply means that when a species is successful, there is no pressure to mate with mutations and a species evolution will greatly slow down.

No species has ever just "appeared at once, fully formed".
All species show slow periodic evolution.

All species show continuity. The closest you can get to discontinuity is that when a species does well, evolutionary change becomes very difficult and slow. But you can easily accelerate evolution by any reduction of the gene pool.

No one should expect it to be easy to find the transitional member between species, since species only go through rapid evolution when unsuccessful, low in number, and forced to inbreed. You are not going to find a lot of fossils for species on the verge of extinction. But we have found enough to prove that is true.

The big bang emergence of new species is exactly what we expect, since a failing species will be low in number until they inbreed with mutations enough to create a more successful species that will rapidly proliferate.

You dunce......humans getting taller is not evolution.

You don't understand the concept at all, do you.

"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

 

[PoliticalChic]

The pepper moth is NEVER given as an example of evolution, but just natural selection, which is only part of evolution. The fact both the white and black versions already exist is proof that mutations already cause the divergence.

It is NOT "adaptation".
The meaning of "adaptation" is that a white moth changed into a black moth, and that never happened.
Long ago a white moth had black moth offspring due to mutation.
The white moths simply lost out to the black moth, and did not change into them.

You mentioned moths, not I.