Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

But I am generous to a fault: you can have another chance.

Is there proof that Darwin's Theory has been proven to explain the variety of life on the planet?

You Lying Filthy POS, you're Lying For Jesus again.
You're DISHONEST to a Fault.
The above bogus claim has already been Dealt with MANY times.
Post #1107 in THIS thread just an hour+ ago


Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' (only math can in the absolute sense) it deals in theories validated over time.
In 160 Years and an explosion of new sciences, NOTHING Contradicts it AND all relevant ones help Affirm it: Radiocarbon dating, DNA, millions of new fossil finds, etc.

Scientific American
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
June 2002

"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.
[......]
`

 

[abu afak]

....and refuting this:
AI Overview Learn more

Yes, Charles Darwin's primary contribution was attempting to explain the variety of life on Earth through his theory of evolution by natural selection, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptation to different environments, resulting in the vast diversity of species we see today.




But you can't do either, can you.

Obviously a 'Short Quote'/One sentence from much longer 'AI' explanation you Dishonestly cut off.
IOW, 'Quote Mining' again.

`

 

[scruffy]

Agreed. The OP is dishonest.

 

[abu afak]

....and refuting this:
AI Overview
Yes, Charles Darwin's primary contribution was attempting to explain the variety of life on Earth through his theory of evolution by natural selection, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptation to different environments, resulting in the vast diversity of species we see today.

But you can't do either, can you.

"AI Overview

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the Foundation of modern biology, as it provides the framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth and how species change over time, essentially explaining the origin of all living organisms through a mechanism based on natural processes like variation and adaptation within populations.

Key points about Darwin's contribution to modern biology:

• Natural Selection:
  Darwin's central concept is that organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those beneficial traits to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in a species over generations.
• "Descent with modification":
  This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.
• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

`

 

[Robert W]

Well now, it’s clear you need to defend philosophy in your appeals to magic and supernaturalism because you can’t use science to defend religious extremism or ID’iot creationerism.

I counted the claims you made. In two sentences, you attacked using 6 claims.
I notice this is a common habit of Democrats. They will create issues so often one almosts thinks they might have something. Readers, my advice is to count their many extreme positions.

 

[Robert W]

• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

I do not believe that Darwin achieved that at all. He did discuss diversity. He could not possibly discuss the very fact that life started on Earth and define how or why life started.

 

[Robert W]

"Descent with modification":
This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.

This is a gross error of what Darwin proved. It was an idea, but not proven at all. For instance, the claim that the common descendent of both elephants and sea otters makes no sense at all. Then take insects and germs. He could not discuss that much if at all.

 

[abu afak]

I do not believe that Darwin achieved that at all. He did discuss diversity. He could not possibly discuss the very fact that life started on Earth and define how or why life started.

LOL.
"You don't think"
ON WHAT BASIS ASSHOLE?
"No"/"I don't think" is not an answer.
You need an ... an... an... 'explanation' if you're going to disagree with the vast bulk of Science.
You can't figure out when to cross the street. (Hint, it's Green.)
`

 

[scruffy]

This is a gross error of what Darwin proved. It was an idea, but not proven at all. For instance, the claim that the common descendent of both elephants and sea otters makes no sense at all. Then take insects and germs. He could not discuss that much if at all.

Whereas YOU can't even answer the simple questions.

Is this a fruit fly or is it a different species?

 

[scruffy]

Is this a fruit fly or is it a different species?

 

[scruffy]

This is a gross error of what Darwin proved. It was an idea, but not proven at all. For instance, the claim that the common descendent of both elephants and sea otters makes no sense at all. Then take insects and germs. He could not discuss that much if at all.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Any taxonomist or phylogenist would agree that the two organisms in the above post are... wait for it...

DIFFERENT SPECIES

1. They look different. One has 4 wings, the other has two.

2. They can't mate with each other.

3. The differences are hereditary.

You are LOOKING AT how to create one species from another, with a SINGLE MUTATION.

Are you going to deny the evidence of your own eyes?

 

[Robert W]

The man predates Dawkins and is a much better scientist (he was a physicist before embracing biology and evolution)

I am not presently trying to prove this about Democrats, but you sparked an idea in me that Democrats have not evolved as far as have we Republicans. Democrats who believe in Darwin or Dawkins just have not accumulated our level of intellect nor of evaluating experiences. They are still like the infant in your post shows as how man starts out crawling to evolve to man running. Perhaps it is time to develop that very notion you caused me to think over.

 

[Robert W]

LOL.
"You don't think"
ON WHAT BASIS ASSHOLE?
"No"/"I don't think" is not an answer.
You need an ... an... an... 'explanation' if you're going to disagree with the vast bulk of Science.
You can't figure out when to cross the street. (Hint, it's Green.)
`

Why won't you discuss things I discuss without changing the subject?
You began with you don't think. I was discussing science. I did not state that I don't think. However when you prove I don't think, then I can bite your head off.

 

[Robert W]

Any taxonomist or phylogenist would agree that the two organisms in the above post are... wait for it...

DIFFERENT SPECIES

1. They look different. One has 4 wings, the other has two.

2. They can't mate with each other.

3. The differences are hereditary.

Why are you whining. I never remarked about those two insects.

 

[scruffy]

Why are you whining. I never remarked about those two insects.

Yeah. Crickets from you. Fully expected.

Simple experiments like this pretty much decimate your anti-Darwin bullshit.

 

[abu afak]

Why won't you discuss things I discuss without changing the subject?
You began with you don't think. I was discussing science. I did not state that I don't think. However when you prove I don't think, then I can bite your head off.

WTF are you talking about goofy?
YOU just made a Huge and unjustified/unexplained/empty claim.
It's on YOU to provide Evidence for "I don't think so."
This is RidicKulous. IQ too low.
`

 

[Robert W]

You are LOOKING AT how to create one species from another, with a SINGLE MUTATION.

Are you going to deny the evidence of your own eyes?

Where is your proof that happend with a single mutation? I absolutely believe in evolution. But not at the rate you claim superior to me.
I can discuss some fish in Africa for an example who are trapped in water ways that the same fish escaped from that are different from each other. But they did not evolve in one mating.

In Africa, the most prominent example of rapid fish evolution is observed in the cichlid fish species inhabiting Lake Victoria, where over 500 distinct species evolved within a relatively short timeframe of around 16,000 years, considered one of the fastest "adaptive radiation" events among vertebrates; this rapid diversification is attributed to the lake's unique ecological niches, allowing different cichlid populations to evolve specialized traits to occupy various food sources within the lake.

 

[Robert W]

Yeah. Crickets from you. Fully expected.

Simple experiments like this pretty much decimate your anti-Darwin bullshit.

I am currently doing around 4 or 5 things. My mind is not like yours were yours does one thing at a time.

 

[Robert W]

It's on YOU to provide Evidence for "I don't think so."

No, you must address that statement. So far you have not proven that it was me saying that.

 

[Robert W]

Simple experiments like this pretty much decimate your anti-Darwin bullshit.

So your claim is that Darwin did this? I have not stated at any time he didn't do that. However I do have his book and can see if I can locate that claim.

DarwinismJerry BergmanInsects provide a severe challenge for Darwinianevolution. In contrast with the vertebrate fossilrecord, for example, where only bones are available,evolutionary speculation can run wild, but theexquisite detail of fossil insects has produced virtualsilence on this front. A review of the insect fossilrecord literature reveals a complete lack of evidencefor the evolution of insects and other arthropods.This is true in spite of an abundance of fossil insectspreserved in amber, coal, volcanic ash, tar, and otherenvironments dating back to the Cambrian era. Theevolution of insect flight, wing folding, compoundeyes and metamorphosis in particular lack fossilevidence—and these have presented significantdifficulties for Darwinism for over a century and ahalf. The major differences between ancient andmodern insects are that ancient insects were eitherlarger than those of today or they have becomeextinct.