Blowing Up Darwin

[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]

"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.

Tell us how this can work. You posted two insects. One with 2 wings and one with 4 wings. Describe for us to study how this insect over time, managed to become a deer. Or maybe a bat.

 

[Robert W]

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.
`

I wish to god I did not need to mock your claims and destroy any evidence you may stumble into adroit discussion. Your IQ seems to be similar to a baboon. I do not blame you for not being intelligent enough to cut and paste what you claim I said. I know because I did not say what you said I did.

 

[scruffy]

Where is your proof that happend with a single mutation? .

lol

See?

You don't even know the science you're trying to discredit.

The bithorax mutation was discovered in 1954 by Ed Lewis. It lives in the BX-C Hox cluster of Drosophila.

Ed Lewis spent his entire life studying fruit fly mutations. His landmark paper was published in 1978, wherein he defined the abx/bx and bxd/pbx mutations, along with 7 other mutations affecting Hox gene BX-C, and about 100 others in the immediately surrounding genome.

BX-C is about 300,000 base pairs of DNA. It was first cloned by Bender in the early 80's. Turns out every single one of the BX-C mutations is a rearrangement breakpoint, it's either an insertion, deletion, translocation, or inversion. There are only 3 genes in BX-C, and in the mid 90's Martin came up with a fly that carries a triple mutation, one in each gene. But the one you're looking at is only a single mutation. It's about halfway into the Ubx gene.

Want to know why I know about this stuff? I'll show you. Look here - see that red dot that looks like an eye? It's actually a brain.

The CNS of Drosophila uses an entirely different code to organize itself, but the interesting thing is it sits BETWEEN the Hox genes. Leading us to believe that it was once a Hox gene.

The Drosophila brain uses 92,000 of the base pairs to generate a long non coding RNA called iab8nc. Read:

Frontiers | Hox gene regulation in the central nervous system of Drosophila

Hox genes specify the structures that form along the anteroposterior (AP) axis of bilateria. Within the genome, they often form clusters where, remarkably en...

www.frontiersin.org

Anyway, I digress. Bithorax is one of the best studied Hox mutations, the other one is called antennapedia. What I'm showing you is that neither you nor Darwin nor anyone else understands what a SPECIES really is. By all the science it's a completely arbitrary classification.

But Darwin didn't know that. He was just the bird watching equivalent of a dog breeder. The science says life is a continuum, and will survive and multiply wherever there's a niche.

You can Google on this stuff if you'd like more information. Google on "Hox gene mutation Drosophila" and you'll get pages and pages of information, corroborating what I just told you.

 

[Robert W]

What I'm showing you is that neither you nor Darwin nor anyone else understands what a SPECIES really is. By all the science it's a completely arbitrary classification.

I know what a species is. See, I also have many books about evolution. And you claim Darwin was clueless.

What are you proving? You showed up today Scruffy acting like you love forum fights.

 

[Robert W]

But Darwin didn't know that. He was just the bird watching equivalent of a dog breeder. The science says life is a continuum, and will survive and multiply wherever there's a niche.

That sounds accurate to me. Congratulations on your cut and paste. Most posters hunting fights don't do that much.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Yours is a common tactic of ID’iot creationers / Watchtower groupies. You literally know nothing of science which is why you don’t understand the Theory of Evolution never addressed the beginning of life.

 

[Robert W]

ours is a common tactic of ID’iot creationers / Watchtower groupies. You literally know nothing of science which is why you don’t understand the Theory of Evolution never addressed the beginning of life.

How can you bloviate like that. I have repeated a lot of times that the theory of evolution never addressed the beginning of life. I also said on this very thread a great book about abiogenesis is in print and is by Professor Schopf of UCLA.

 

[Hollie]

How can you bloviate like that. I have repeated a lot of times that the theory of evolution never addressed the beginning of life. I also said on this very thread a great book about abiogenesis is in print and is by Professor Schopf of UCLA.

Why do you seek to discredit your own claims. You wrote earlier, “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.”

That’s why it was importantl to note your ignorance regarding the Theory of Evolution. Darwin never attempted to address the beginning of life. You have made this same error multiple times.

You literally don’t understand the subject matter you are whining about.

Such are the failures of graduates from the Watchtower and Bible tract madrassah.

 

[Woodznutz]

I'm not going to make your points for you, Mr. Vague. Your myth isn't going to wash, no matter how much you equivocate and say nothing, with great verbosity.

I led you to water. It's up to you whether or not to drink.

 

[scruffy]

I know what a species is.

I doubt it.

See, I also have many books about evolution. And you claim Darwin was clueless.

I said Darwin is dead.

I never said he was clueless.

What are you proving? You showed up today Scruffy acting like you love forum fights.

I've been here longer than you have. You joined this thread late.

I brought the receipts. What did you bring?

 

[scruffy]

How can you bloviate like that. I have repeated a lot of times that the theory of evolution never addressed the beginning of life. I also said on this very thread a great book about abiogenesis is in print and is by Professor Schopf of UCLA.

The beginning of life is not the topic.

Quit dissembling.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not interested in your silly games.

You - and several others here - make no sense whatsoever, there's a deep vein of irrationality underpinning your hostile posts here.

Has it really not crossed your mind that if there is no God, no creative free agency, then all your hostility and fury vented at me and others, is pointless?

By your own reasoning I am a product of evolution, a product of nature, natural force? I have no will of my own, I am merely a complicated deterministic machine, and all human activities are consequences of nature - like art, music, religion, philosophy and yes even science.

So why applaud evolution on one hand and curse what it produces on the other? Why attack theists as you do, it's like beating a dog over and over because it refuses to speak or dance, deranged utterly unhinged.

 

[Hollie]

You - and several others here - make no sense whatsoever, there's a deep vein of irrationality underpinning your hostile posts here.

Has it really not crossed your mind that if there is no God, no creative free agency, then all your hostility and fury vented at me and others, is pointless?

By your own reasoning I am a product of evolution, a product of nature, natural force? I have no will of my own, I am merely a complicated deterministic machine.

So why applaud evolution on one hand and curse what it produces on the other?

There is no hostility in countering false claims of the science-loathing religious zealots.

I would agree you have no will of your own but that has nothing to do with biological organisms.

I think that arguments for souls and spirits existing in some afterlife can be resolved by describing one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs: The deep seated fear of dying, fear of the unknown and a desire to experience our lives. Perhaps not everyone shares those feeling, perhaps not everyone can.

Nature has preprogrammed successful animals with a desire to survive, and once you add our ability to have a sentient perception of death, you have a formula for a more deep seated fear (at least, one that can be expressed by doing something more than just fleeing, like all other animals do. The best way to ameliorate such fear is to actively be involved in making our lives meaningful and relevant. The onus is on us, not a hope for some form of eternal existence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no hostility in countering false claims of the science-loathing religious zealots.

I would agree you have no will of your own but that has nothing to do with biological organisms.

Your struggle then is not with me but with nature itself, of which I am just a product.

 

[Hollie]

Your battle then is not with me but with nature, of which I am just a product.

You are hostile to nature. You are a product of fear and superstition as a part of your religious extremism.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are hostile to nature. You are a product of fear and superstition as a part of your religious extremism.

Yet fear and superstition arose naturally did they not?

You must say "Yes" because to answer "No" is to admit to the existence of the non-natural, the supernatural.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is why we read in Romans

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

[Hollie]

Yet fear and superstition arose naturally did they not?

No. Fear and superstition is a product of ignorance. Gods do not control thunder and lightning nor did they make the earth flat.

Yet fear and superstition arose naturally did they not?

You must say "Yes" because to answer "No" is to admit to the existence of the non-natural, the supernatural.

Describe the "un-natural". Provide some testable data for your your unnatural realms.

Identify one, single supernatural event that has ever occurred in human history.

 

[Hollie]

This is why we read in Romans

"The Bible says" is not any sort of relevant argument.

You mistake your religious extremism for anything but another, garden variety hurling of gods and books of the dead of which there are many.