Blowing Up Darwin

[Rigby5]

Fits Marxism perfectly.

Science, not so much.

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

You never read Marx.
All Marx and Engles were trying to do in the 1830s, was come up with a means by which the poor majority could survive after the Industrial Revolution caused expensive factories to be able to undercut cottage industry prices.
Essentially all Marx wrote was that the only means by which the working poor majority could survive and maintain their freedom, would be to band together and collectively, communally, and cooperatively create their own factories so they would not become slaves to those who could afford factories.
Since then, we invented alternative, such as unions and labor laws, so we do not need communal factories as an alternative.

There are no examples of Marxism because he came after the French and North American rebellion, and way before the Russian rebellion.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
Humans getting taller most certainly is evolution.
The mutations for height happened long ago, but it took an environmental improvement in food availability before being taller was useful. Until then it was a disadvantage because you need more food. That is why island species typically are much smaller. And the natural selection that is showing up at taller humans, most definitely is evolution.

And yes, we have created different species from fruit flies.
We have created one who do not even have wings.

A square egg or ball bearings would not be an advantage in any way. Nor is a mutation ever likely to result in something that drastic. But domesticated animals often can no longer interbreed with their wild ancestors, so are different species entirely, proving evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You never read Marx.
All Marx and Engles were trying to do in the 1830s, was come up with a means by which the poor majority could survive after the Industrial Revolution caused expensive factories to be able to undercut cottage industry prices.
Essentially all Marx wrote was that the only means by which the working poor majority could survive and maintain their freedom, would be to band together and collectively, communally, and cooperatively create their own factories so they would not become slaves to those who could afford factories.
Since then, we invented alternative, such as unions and labor laws, so we do not need communal factories as an alternative.

There are no examples of Marxism because he came after the French and North American rebellion, and way before the Russian rebellion.

Marx=Bolsheviks, Nazis, Maoists, Democrats

 

[scruffy]

We already know there's no such thing as "nothing".

Nothing doesn't exist. All of spacetime is teeming with "stuff".

The weird thing about it is, how much of it you see depends on how fast you're moving. And whether you're accelerating.

There are plenty of mysteries in this universe, it's hard to argue against them. Which is why science is something you do, not something you believe.

I don't listen to the people who say evolution is impossible, because I've seen it with my own eyes. The mechanics of it might go this way or that way, but its existence is kinda self evident.

I claim the entire universe is alive. "Species" are just complexity. I can stick a pin in a tadpole and it'll grow arms where it's eyes are supposed to be. That kind of complexity is what we need to understand.

I suggest you check out a book called "The Fractal Geometry of Nature". Lots of pretty pictures. It tells you how the shapes of things boil down to very simple math. Everything from ferns to wings. The other worthy math is Catastrophe Theory, which tells you how new species can arise from old species, instantly instead of gradually. Turns out, the mapping from our retinas to our brains is exactly like a seashell. Very simple math. The "shapes" in nature are easily understood.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong.
Humans getting taller most certainly is evolution.
The mutations for height happened long ago, but it took an environmental improvement in food availability before being taller was useful. Until then it was a disadvantage because you need more food. That is why island species typically are much smaller. And the natural selection that is showing up at taller humans, most definitely is evolution.

And yes, we have created different species from fruit flies.
We have created one who do not even have wings.

A square egg or ball bearings would not be an advantage in any way. Nor is a mutation ever likely to result in something that drastic. But domesticated animals often can no longer interbreed with their wild ancestors, so are different species entirely, proving evolution.

"Wrong.
Humans getting taller most certainly is evolution."

You're an imbecile.
AI Overview
Learn more

No, the recent trend of humans getting taller is not considered "evolution" in the strict scientific sense, as the significant height increases observed in the last few centuries are primarily due to improved nutrition and environmental factors, not genetic changes occurring rapidly enough to be classified as evolution; meaning the changes are not being passed down through natural selection at a significant rate within that timeframe.



You have no clue what evolution is.

 

[Rigby5]

You mentioned moths, not I.

No, you brought up moths as an example of a common illustration of Darwin's ideas, and then tried to show it ws not "evolution".
Of course natural selection is not evolution, but is only PART of the process. Evolution also includes the mutation part that created the first black moth originally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We already know there's no such thing as "nothing".

Nothing doesn't exist. All of spacetime is teeming with "stuff".

The weird thing about it is, how much of it you see depends on how fast you're moving. And whether you're accelerating.

There are plenty of mysteries in this universe, it's hard to argue against them. Which is why science is something you do, not something you believe.

I don't listen to the people who say evolution is impossible, because I've seen it with my own eyes. The mechanics of it might go this way or that way, but its existence is kinda self evident.

I claim the entire universe is alive. "Species" are just complexity. I can stick a pin in a tadpole and it'll grow arms where it's eyes are supposed to be. That kind of complexity is what we need to understand.

I suggest you check out a book called "The Fractal Geometry of Nature". Lots of pretty pictures. It tells you how the shapes of things boil down to very simple math. Everything from ferns to wings. The other worthy math is Catastrophe Theory, which tells you how new species can arise from old species, instantly instead of gradually. Turns out, the mapping from our retinas to our brains is exactly like a seashell. Very simple math. The "shapes" in nature are easily understood.

Note according to Liberal scientists.


...... the Leftist astrophysicists will make the absurd claim.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist andcosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?

And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.




Nothing frightens Leftists more than religon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you brought up moths as an example of a common illustration of Darwin's ideas, and then tried to show it ws not "evolution".
Of course natural selection is not evolution, but is only PART of the process. Evolution also includes the mutation part that created the first black moth originally.

You said moths become something else.

Get an education.

 

[Rigby5]

"Wrong.
Humans getting taller most certainly is evolution."

You're an imbecile.
AI Overview
Learn more

No, the recent trend of humans getting taller is not considered "evolution" in the strict scientific sense, as the significant height increases observed in the last few centuries are primarily due to improved nutrition and environmental factors, not genetic changes occurring rapidly enough to be classified as evolution; meaning the changes are not being passed down through natural selection at a significant rate within that timeframe.



You have no clue what evolution is.

Wrong.
Nutrition has improved on average, but some people have always have more than enough nutrition, and in fact the Romans threw up so they could eat even more.
There are no "environmental factors" that would cause us to become taller now, since we rely more on machines now and do not need to be taller.
The increasing tallness is only from natural selection, and is being passed down.
Shorter humans simply are not as desirable as mates.

 

[Rigby5]

Note according to Liberal scientists.


...... the Leftist astrophysicists will make the absurd claim.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist andcosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?

And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.




Nothing frightens Leftists more than religon.

Wrong.
No one I have ever read believes this.
They all believe that universes create black hole that eventually cause new universes to pop up.
So nothing comes from nothing, but instead universes have life spans and create new universes eventually.

But religion makes no sense because why would a god spend thousands of millions of year creating new species until finally creating human beings?
And why would that god then only tell a tiny Mideast group about his existence?
If there really were a god, then there would not need to be any proto homo sapiens, and there would only be one universal religion created by that god.

 

[Rigby5]

You said moths become something else.

Get an education.

No, I said nothing tends to evolve if successful.
What I said is that if moths become unsuccessful, they will likely evolve into something else that is more successful.

And since I have a BS in physics and electrical engineering, and an MS in computer science, I think I am well educated enough.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False.

Sorry, the opinions of someone who would fail a 6th grade science quiz aren't worth anything, here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not necessarily.

For DNA life, it's true. I see your point. But all DNA life past a certain (very early) point in time will have a UCA.

 

[abu afak]

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.”

Whenever I'm absent for a while/month/s, The Lying Devil PolitcalSheik comes back into the Science section with her Kweationist 7-11 Adventist Crap.

Wiki:

"Stephen Charles Meyer (born 1958) is an American historian, author, and former educator.
He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God.[1][2]

Meyer was a founder of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI),[3] which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[4][5][6]
Before joining the institute, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. He is a senior fellow of the DI and the director of the CSC.[7]"..."

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[Leo123]

No, I said nothing tends to evolve if successful.
What I said is that if moths become unsuccessful, they will likely evolve into something else that is more successful.

And since I have a BS in physics and electrical engineering, and an MS in computer science, I think I am well educated enough.

If an organism is not successful, it will likely just die. A successful organism will likely evolve to be more efficient.

Just for reference, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[scruffy]

Note according to Liberal scientists.


...... the Leftist astrophysicists will make the absurd claim.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist andcosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?

And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.




Nothing frightens Leftists more than religon.

Well, Kraus is wrong.

(And Dawkins is a nutball).

There's no accounting for peoples' beliefs.

More importantly though, people misunderstand the words they read. Language is imperfect. Lots of scientific papers start out with a punchline, and then take the next two pages to explain what it means. Sometimes people don't read the two pages, they just look at the punchline and move on.

We are starting to understand how stem cells work. We can already coerce them into behaving differently. People used to think nerve cells can't regenerate, and now we know they can and do. Embryology is fascinating. A cell will broadcast its identity, it'll say "I'm a brain cell", and scientists already know how to say "no you're not, you're a liver". The interesting thing is, the liver always looks like a liver, it never looks like a brain. The shape is part of the programming.

Once again, it boils down to simple math. Check out "space filling curves". Most of them are simple recursion equations. The instruction will be something like "remove the middle third" or "double size and turn left". But what results is complex and beautiful.

 

[Rigby5]

You are explaining why there is no proof of Darwin's theory.


There is, in fact, proof of the very opposit of Darwin.


The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




You've been fooled yet again.

WRONG!
The article you liked clearly said that the volcanic fluff was responsible for the extremely good quality fossilization, so then BEFORE the volcanic eruption, there could not be any fossilization occurring.
And in no way does that at all imply there were no "precursors" to all the major animal phyla. It just means the precursors did not have any chance to fossilize.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

WRONG!

It is well understood science that a successful species will not evolve significantly, and significant evolution can only occur when a species is doing so badly that there is huge amounts of inbreeding.
So punctuated equilibrium of long periods of statis followed by short periods of rapid change, is always expected to be the case, and does prove evolution.

Evolution is abundantly apparent all around us.
Like all those warm blooded dinosaurs have left us with the rich avian history.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Kinda vague there. I noted there can be minor mutations but in the end you still have a moth.

 

[alang1216]

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

Maybe because your boogie man wrote his works 150+ years ago and we've learned much since then? Of course nothing we've learned changes the central tenet of Darwin, we all descended from a common ancestor. 150 years ago Newtonian physics was all we knew, Einstein was still way in the future.