Can It Be Science If It's Based On Lies???

[PoliticalChic]

From what I've read PC -- there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist. There were plenty of times in history where conditions suddenly changed, caused IMMENSE stress on species, and LIKELY altered DNA in a WIDESPREAD, ACCELERATED fashion..

We've probably been chasing Darwin's CONCEPT of evolution a bit too literally and falsely EXPECT a finely demarked tree of life when actually, the picture is a lot more violent and chaotic than we (or Darwin) imagined..

I'm pretty sure that when Darwin was comparing bird beaks for nut-cracking ability and mumbling about "survival of the fittest" -- He DEFINITELY was NOT thinking Asteroid impacts, heavy cosmic ray storms, and Continental level volcanic upheavals..

"... there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist."

No...not if faith is good enough.

Darwin wrote in "Origin" of the need for fossil evidence to prove his theory.

Yes -- he needed a well ordered ascension of life to be documented in the fossil record.. Because he understood the BASIC RESULT of mutations -- but he completely lacked knowledge about the MECHANISMS of mutations.. That was a job for latter science to fill in.

You can't really succeed in blowing up Darwin completely, because he is the FOUNDATION STONE of the "evolving" science that he created. But you CAN correct those who take on the silly job of PRETENDING that Darwin describes the COMPLETE sum of our knowledge of evolution.. Generally not in favor of MOCKING founding ideas --- even IF they've morphed considerably.. But neither do I suffer idiots who cling to Darwin and ignore the NEXT 150 years of science..

He knew nothing about mutations, nor did he mention them.

It seems you're not familiar with Darwin's theory.

S.J. Gould was.

And he tried to defend it by coming up with the exact opposite theory of Darwin's....and there are dopes who accept both as completely compatible.

 

[ogibillm]

"... there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist."

No...not if faith is good enough.

Darwin wrote in "Origin" of the need for fossil evidence to prove his theory.

Yes -- he needed a well ordered ascension of life to be documented in the fossil record.. Because he understood the BASIC RESULT of mutations -- but he completely lacked knowledge about the MECHANISMS of mutations.. That was a job for latter science to fill in.

You can't really succeed in blowing up Darwin completely, because he is the FOUNDATION STONE of the "evolving" science that he created. But you CAN correct those who take on the silly job of PRETENDING that Darwin describes the COMPLETE sum of our knowledge of evolution.. Generally not in favor of MOCKING founding ideas --- even IF they've morphed considerably.. But neither do I suffer idiots who cling to Darwin and ignore the NEXT 150 years of science..

He knew nothing about mutations, nor did he mention them.

It seems you're not familiar with Darwin's theory.

S.J. Gould was.

And he tried to defend it by coming up with the exact opposite theory of Darwin's....and there are dopes who accept both as completely compatible.

punctuated evolution does not negate or contradict gradual evolution, nor is it the exact opposite of Darwin's theory and it is simply ignorant to make that claim.

either way, are you saying that you accept a theory of evolution in which there are periods of rapid change followed by longer periods of small change or do you take issue with that as well?

 

[flacaltenn]

"... there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist."

No...not if faith is good enough.

Darwin wrote in "Origin" of the need for fossil evidence to prove his theory.

Yes -- he needed a well ordered ascension of life to be documented in the fossil record.. Because he understood the BASIC RESULT of mutations -- but he completely lacked knowledge about the MECHANISMS of mutations.. That was a job for latter science to fill in.

You can't really succeed in blowing up Darwin completely, because he is the FOUNDATION STONE of the "evolving" science that he created. But you CAN correct those who take on the silly job of PRETENDING that Darwin describes the COMPLETE sum of our knowledge of evolution.. Generally not in favor of MOCKING founding ideas --- even IF they've morphed considerably.. But neither do I suffer idiots who cling to Darwin and ignore the NEXT 150 years of science..

He knew nothing about mutations, nor did he mention them.

It seems you're not familiar with Darwin's theory.

S.J. Gould was.

And he tried to defend it by coming up with the exact opposite theory of Darwin's....and there are dopes who accept both as completely compatible.

That's EXACTLY what I said PC.. Darwin supplied the RESULTS of mutation as it applied to survival, but never had a CLUE as to the list of potential causes.. If you're merely chastizing me that he never used the term "mutation" -- doesn't matter.. He defined "adaptation" well enough to cover.. He DID understand the basic of genetics and the ability of these "adaptations" to be passed...

That's why the theory as ORIGINALLY STATED requires that smooth fossil transition. So --- whatchawannado? Lynch him?

I think it's fair that you go after the jerks who carry Darwin around as a CURRENT sum total ICON of evolutionary knowledge --- Because they overlook 150 years of knowledge MISSING from his assumptions and theories. But I see no reason to attempt to blow him out of the water as "lying" or even "wrong".. He was just not privvy to the information that we have today.

As I started out saying -- TODAY --- we don't have to assume a smooth transistional record of evolution.. We know better than to expect that.

And in case you didn't notice.. I'm supporting your statement that we haven't found and likely never will find the evidence to support Darwin's CONCEPT of what should be in the fossil -- so to me --- you won that argument. I'm questioning this urge to burn the guy for being born too early to state the theorem better..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes -- he needed a well ordered ascension of life to be documented in the fossil record.. Because he understood the BASIC RESULT of mutations -- but he completely lacked knowledge about the MECHANISMS of mutations.. That was a job for latter science to fill in.

You can't really succeed in blowing up Darwin completely, because he is the FOUNDATION STONE of the "evolving" science that he created. But you CAN correct those who take on the silly job of PRETENDING that Darwin describes the COMPLETE sum of our knowledge of evolution.. Generally not in favor of MOCKING founding ideas --- even IF they've morphed considerably.. But neither do I suffer idiots who cling to Darwin and ignore the NEXT 150 years of science..

He knew nothing about mutations, nor did he mention them.

It seems you're not familiar with Darwin's theory.

S.J. Gould was.

And he tried to defend it by coming up with the exact opposite theory of Darwin's....and there are dopes who accept both as completely compatible.

punctuated evolution does not negate or contradict gradual evolution, nor is it the exact opposite of Darwin's theory and it is simply ignorant to make that claim.

either way, are you saying that you accept a theory of evolution in which there are periods of rapid change followed by longer periods of small change or do you take issue with that as well?

"punctuated evolution does not negate or contradict gradual evolution, nor is it the exact opposite of Darwin's theory and it is simply ignorant to make that claim."





1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

2. . Steven J. Gould reported: "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)



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

 

[orogenicman]

He knew nothing about mutations, nor did he mention them.

It seems you're not familiar with Darwin's theory.

S.J. Gould was.

And he tried to defend it by coming up with the exact opposite theory of Darwin's....and there are dopes who accept both as completely compatible.

punctuated evolution does not negate or contradict gradual evolution, nor is it the exact opposite of Darwin's theory and it is simply ignorant to make that claim.

either way, are you saying that you accept a theory of evolution in which there are periods of rapid change followed by longer periods of small change or do you take issue with that as well?

"punctuated evolution does not negate or contradict gradual evolution, nor is it the exact opposite of Darwin's theory and it is simply ignorant to make that claim."





1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

2. . Steven J. Gould reported: "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)



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

Still plagiarizing from other idiots, I see.