Criticisms of Evolution

[Hollie]

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

President Trump has taken an anti-viral drug. He didn’t let the illness “run its course”.

You might try learning the facts and communicating on something more than a 5th grade level.

Finally, you present something to discuss.

So now you're saying drugs are evolution ? I don't think any drug nor vaccines are passed on to another generation. The continued use and subsequent damage could be while still in the womb which is direct transmission and not evolution. This shows there is no evidence for evolution. We know Dagosa doesn't know much about science and is just pulling stuff out his rear end.

I did find the AIDS virus and we still don't have a vaccine for it. Isn't that in favor of Christian morality? It is also direct transmission and not something that evolves. So a vaccine and a virus aren't exactly something that evolves.

What creation science does find is that an unhealthy lifestyle can be passed down to the next generation. Thus, if someone abuses drugs, then that sin is likely to be passed down. Notice, its the habit or unhealthy lifestyle that is passed down and not the results of the drugs or vaccines.

You seem confused by some pretty simple concepts. You then go on to make some meaningless comment about ''direct transmission and not evolution.''. That makes absolutely no sense.

How does a vaccine, or lack thereof for the AIDS virus favor Christian morality? Wouldn't creation of the AIDS virus suggest the gods are punishing Christians?

On the other hand, viruses do, in fact, evolve, Have you heard of the flu virus?

How Viruses Evolve

Pathogens that switch to a new host species have some adapting to do. How does that affect the course of a pandemic like COVID-19?

www.smithsonianmag.com

What science illiterate Christians don't do (you call them ID'iot creationer scientists) is actual testing and study in the fields of biology, chemistry and immunology. Of course, you could refute that by identifying the peer reviewed papers and those labs funded and staffed by ID'iot creationers.

So..... feel free to do that.

 

[james bond]

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

Look up herd immunity. Populations develop herd immunity, not individuals. They develop personal immunity through anti bodies after infection and vaccines. Vaccines help develop herd immunity without a significant population getting sick.

You can't read either. I said our bodies you poo poo head.

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

Look up herd immunity. Populations develop herd immunity, not individuals. They develop personal immunity through anti bodies after infection and vaccines. Vaccines help develop herd immunity without a significant population getting sick.

No, I know that and said our bodies. Finally, you explained something, but reality is we aren't close to reaching it. What do you think we learned about herd immunity from Sweden? Is that the way the US should go?

 

[Dagosa]

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

Look up herd immunity. Populations develop herd immunity, not individuals. They develop personal immunity through anti bodies after infection and vaccines. Vaccines help develop herd immunity without a significant population getting sick.

You can't read either. I said our bodies you poo poo head.

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

Look up herd immunity. Populations develop herd immunity, not individuals. They develop personal immunity through anti bodies after infection and vaccines. Vaccines help develop herd immunity without a significant population getting sick.

No, I know that and said our bodies. Finally, you explained something, but reality is we aren't close to reaching it. What do you think we learned about herd immunity from Sweden? Is that the way the US should go?

Sweden is going for herd immunity without benefit of a vaccine. We and most other nations have much larger and diverse population would see millions of deaths in going for herd immunity without benefit of a vaccine. Get off your arse and do some legit research instead of listening to Fix News.

 

[james bond]

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

Look up herd immunity. Populations develop herd immunity, not individuals. They develop personal immunity through anti bodies after infection and vaccines. Vaccines help develop herd immunity without a significant population getting sick.

You can't read either. I said our bodies you poo poo head.

I know vaccine development at its core uses evolution and It’s corollaries. You on the other hand think you know more then every accredited university in the world. What a dolt.

It's fake science since you're just claiming it does, but provide no evidence.

The evidence is apparent to anyone who isn’t totally science illiterate. That’s not you. You have a computer. You have access to the sites of any university in the world. Yet, you get your info about science from people who know nothing about science. Amazing....

It appears Donald Trump won't need a vaccine to survive, so he just let's it run its course. It appears our bodies build up a herd immunity to a new virus and we know that isn't passed on. Thus, you could not explain your claim, have poo poo in your face, and now we know you have poo poo in your brain.

Look up herd immunity. Populations develop herd immunity, not individuals. They develop personal immunity through anti bodies after infection and vaccines. Vaccines help develop herd immunity without a significant population getting sick.

No, I know that and said our bodies. Finally, you explained something, but reality is we aren't close to reaching it. What do you think we learned about herd immunity from Sweden? Is that the way the US should go?

Sweden is going for herd immunity without benefit of a vaccine. We and most other nations have much larger and diverse population would see millions of deaths in going for herd immunity without benefit of a vaccine. Get off your arse and do some legit research instead of listening to Fix News.

You are such a poo poo head. We don't have a vaccine, so can't get herd immunity from that until 2021? Maybe longer. Anyway, there is heated argument over what Sweden accomplished. Those against it think too many died are the liberals who use politics instead of just looking it up. It appears Sweden is #42 in the world and close to China. Thus, what DJT, Fox News, and the conservatives think could work in the USA. The cost would be more deaths, but we should go full bore after DJT gets re-elected.

 

[ChemEngineer]

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:



"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.



A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.



For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.


*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!


The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.


It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.


For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.


*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

 

[Hollie]

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:



"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.



A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.



For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.


*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!


The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.


It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.


For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.


*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

It’s comedy gold when the religious extremists present a “computer scientist” to critique matters of biology.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Many.....wow. That’s a lot. Is it more then (sic) most ? Nope. Is it more then (sic) those at every institute of higher learning in the world ? Nope. Move on.

Take your orders and pack them in your ass.

I was only able to read the ignorant post by Dagosa by clicking on Post Reply to Viktor's.
Dagosa, along with many other flaming Leftists is on my Ignore List because of his redundant and obvious ignorance. He doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than." Grade school level ignorance.

On the subject of science, he equates science with consensus, IF Darwinian evolution is in fact believed by a consensus of knowledgeable scientists, which is highly questionable.

As some scientist said, "At one time Galileo was the only person on earth who believed that earth revolved around the sun, but he was right!"

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

[Dagosa]

Many.....wow. That’s a lot. Is it more then (sic) most ? Nope. Is it more then (sic) those at every institute of higher learning in the world ? Nope. Move on.

Take your orders and pack them in your ass.

I was only able to read the ignorant post by Dagosa by clicking on Post Reply to Viktor's.
Dagosa, along with many other flaming Leftists is on my Ignore List because of his redundant and obvious ignorance. He doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than." Grade school level ignorance.

On the subject of science, he equates science with consensus, IF Darwinian evolution is in fact believed by a consensus of knowledgeable scientists, which is highly questionable.

As some scientist said, "At one time Galileo was the only person on earth who believed that earth revolved around the sun, but he was right!"

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Gee, I should have a fancy handle claiming I knew wtf I was talking about. Consensus is an essential part of science. Really, you have the handle claiming you ‘re an engineer and you’re arguing for what ? A world where the ignorant few hold more sway than the educated many who agree on knowledge that adds meaning. ? What BS. If you are an engineer, may you lose your effin job.

Seriously Mr Engineer, If who can’t even direct a quote to the right place, ask for help. You don’t know as much sht as you pretend to.

 

[Dagosa]

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:



"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.



A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.



For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.


*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!


The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.


It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.


For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.


*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Seriously, someone reads this braggadocio ? Cut it to two paragraphs.

 

[Ringtone]

Gee, I should have a fancy handle claiming I knew wtf I was talking about. Consensus is an essential part of science. Really, you have the handle claiming you ‘re an engineer and you’re arguing for what ? A world where the ignorant few hold more sway than the educated many who agree on knowledge that adds meaning. ? What BS. If you are an engineer, may you lose your effin job.

Seriously Mr Engineer, If who can’t even direct a quote to the right place, ask for help. You don’t know as much sht as you pretend to.

Evolution is a myth, a fantasy . . . a long con.

 

[Ringtone]

There's no doubt that some sort of evolution has taken place. The only other possibility is that there have been many creations. I don't really see that being espoused, so we're left with evolution.

Many creations or creative events. There's no question the speciation of adaptive radiation occurs. This would mean that most species need not be directly created at all. I suspect you don't really understand the alternative.

 

[konradv]

Gee, I should have a fancy handle claiming I knew wtf I was talking about. Consensus is an essential part of science. Really, you have the handle claiming you ‘re an engineer and you’re arguing for what ? A world where the ignorant few hold more sway than the educated many who agree on knowledge that adds meaning. ? What BS. If you are an engineer, may you lose your effin job. Seriously Mr Engineer, If who can’t even direct a quote to the right place, ask for help. You don’t know as much sht as you pretend to.

Evolution is a myth, a fantasy . . . a long con.

Evolution explains the fossil record. It'll keep being touted until you can come up with a better explanation.

 

[konradv]

There's no doubt that some sort of evolution has taken place. The only other possibility is that there have been many creations. I don't really see that being espoused, so we're left with evolution.

Many creations or creative events. There's no question the speciation of adaptive radiation occurs. This would would mean that most species need not be directly created at all. I suspect you don't really understand the alternative.

Then enlighten us. So far, we're getting nothing.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Evolution explains the fossil record. It'll keep being touted until you can come up with a better explanation.

The profound IGNORANCE of needing "an explanation" is utterly unscientific. However biologists cling to their worthless tautology because they would be blackballed by their peers. "We don't know" is a perfectly good answer when your Darwinian tautology fails miserably, as it has.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)


“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution explains the fossil record. It'll keep being touted until you can come up with a better explanation.

So does common design. What makes evolution, which cannot account for the kind of new information required, be a better explanation?

 

[Hollie]

Gee, I should have a fancy handle claiming I knew wtf I was talking about. Consensus is an essential part of science. Really, you have the handle claiming you ‘re an engineer and you’re arguing for what ? A world where the ignorant few hold more sway than the educated many who agree on knowledge that adds meaning. ? What BS. If you are an engineer, may you lose your effin job.

Seriously Mr Engineer, If who can’t even direct a quote to the right place, ask for help. You don’t know as much sht as you pretend to.

Evolution is a myth, a fantasy . . . a long con.

It's not unusual for religious extremists to believe that science is a vast, global conspiracy.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution explains the fossil record. It'll keep being touted until you can come up with a better explanation.

The profound IGNORANCE of needing "an explanation" is utterly unscientific. However biologists cling to their worthless tautology because they would be blackballed by their peers. "We don't know" is a perfectly good answer when your Darwinian tautology fails miserably, as it has.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)


“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

Pretty darn funny that the religious extremists cut and paste the same ''quotes'' from fundie creation ministries.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So does common design.

False. Common design does not explain why species appear and disappear. Sorry. YEC talking point number 5 billion to the garbage bin with the others.

 

[Dagosa]

Gee, I should have a fancy handle claiming I knew wtf I was talking about. Consensus is an essential part of science. Really, you have the handle claiming you ‘re an engineer and you’re arguing for what ? A world where the ignorant few hold more sway than the educated many who agree on knowledge that adds meaning. ? What BS. If you are an engineer, may you lose your effin job. Seriously Mr Engineer, If who can’t even direct a quote to the right place, ask for help. You don’t know as much sht as you pretend to.

Evolution is a myth, a fantasy . . . a long con.

Evolution explains the fossil record. It'll keep being touted until you can come up with a better explanation.

Really ? You’re willing to dismiss tha nearly every food we eat that has been genetically altered using what we know about evolution ? Where are fossils? Seriously, your covid vaccine is just more proof that science saves millions more people the prayer, much of which is based upon our knowledge of evolution. . Exactly what will be replacing it ?