Darwin destroyed in new book

[Libby von H]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend – CEH

crev.info

 

[luiza]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

A complete and utter Fake .
See Miles Mathis for his complete destruction
,Parts one to five with more to come -- all publihed very recently .

 

[Libby von H]

A complete and utter Fake .
See Miles Mathis for his complete destruction
,Parts one to five with more to come -- all publihed very recently .

So I thought , "can I get somebody to tell the obvious lie, you know "complete and utter fake" " --because when you see how thorough the evidence is , you've got the old Logic rule, that one counterexample destroys an unqualified statement

 

[August West]

My MAGA friend believes in Adam and Eve. Seriously! They let this idiot teach special ed in a high school for 32 years.
His former students should be suing for reparations.

 

[alang1216]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend – CEH

crev.info

View attachment 932377

Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.

 

[Libby von H]

Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.

aaah, but that was an innovaton upon Darwin, HE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did he extend evolution to include the universe.
Get an education. He completely rejected any explanation of where that first living thing came from . So do you

DON"T YOU REMEMBER
the cover story in Europe's leading science magazine, New Scientist, admitting that Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

This "Tree of Life" sketch is seen in Darwin's "B" notebook, at a press preview of the new "Darwin" exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History November 15, 2005 in New York City Read our related editorial: Uprooting Darwin's tree IN JULY 1837, Charles Darwin had a flash of inspiration...

www.newscientist.com

 

[alang1216]

aaah, but that was an innovaton upon Darwin, HE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did he extend evolution to include the universe.
Get an education. He completely rejected any explanation of where that first living thing came from . So do you

DON"T YOU REMEMBER
the cover story in Europe's leading science magazine, New Scientist, admitting that Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

Paywall but irrelevant anyway. My point is that showing Darwin was flawed in no way undercuts the FACT of evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[rampart]

Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.

the evidence for natural selection is so strong that a counterexample must be suspected of fraud or mistaken identity.

the fact that newtons laws of motion must be adjusted for relativistic effects does not mean that apples no longer fall downward.

 

[Libby von H]

Paywall but irrelevant anyway. My point is that showing Darwin was flawed in no way undercuts the FACT of evolution from a common ancestor.

Well, that ;is even easier to dismiss

1)There is not just 1 evolution !!!!
2) Until YOU distinguish micro-evolution (the breeds of dogs)from Macro,No one knows what you are defending
3) And 'common ancestor' is the surely disproved aspect of any evolulutionary theory. Even Gould said that the Cambrian explosions destoryed gradualist views of evolution

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

 

[Libby von H]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

actually Western Civilization until recently reversed that
Natural THeology shows there must be a Creator, by reason.

And evolution, which has had 3 major revisions just in my life, is a theory and a declining one by all scientific accounts

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

dissentfromdarwin.org

Scientists – Dissent from Darwin

dissentfromdarwin.org

The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren’t terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument.

Below is an article to get started:

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

=======================
I have scientific training, you do not. Okay

 

[rightwinger]

actually Western Civilization until recently reversed that
Natural THeology shows there must be a Creator, by reason.

And evolution, which has had 3 major revisions just in my life, is a theory and a declining one by all scientific accounts

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

dissentfromdarwin.org

Scientists – Dissent from Darwin

dissentfromdarwin.org

The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren’t terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument.

Below is an article to get started:

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

=======================
I have scientific training, you do not. Okay

Evolution occurred, it can’t be denied
Complex life evolved from simple life forms

A “Creator” is at best a theory
A theory unsupported by any evidence

 

[luiza]

So I thought , "can I get somebody to tell the obvious lie, you know "complete and utter fake" " --because when you see how thorough the evidence is , you've got the old Logic rule, that one counterexample destroys an unqualified statement

Charles Darwin. Part I of big research.

This is scholarship --- complex and detailed.
There are few on this board who would be interested or capable of giving the time and effort to follow it through .
Imagine Leftpinger faced with it . He would have a half brain explosion after the first few paragraphs .
Simple minds need simple explanations as his posts amply demonstrate . But unfortunately here Pinger is more the norm than the exception .

As for Mr Mathis, the author .
I am not aware of a more gifted polymath and inventor alive anywhere .
His scientific papers are extraordinary and rip the likes of Einstein , Heisenberg , Oppenheimer to shreds without anybody daring , or apparently able to challenge his work .
But the most amazing thing is that he then provides solutions in areas that are worthy of the highest recognition and reward .

His paintings are also there to be seen and within his genre he is outstanding .A true genius .

With a good manager he could be a world celebrity but I suspect that might be the last thing that he would want

 

[alang1216]

Well, that ;is even easier to dismiss

1)There is not just 1 evolution !!!!

Incorrect.

2) Until YOU distinguish micro-evolution (the breeds of dogs)from Macro,No one knows what you are defending

There is only evolution. It is we who draw a generally arbitrary line and say this is a new species or it is not. That is for our convenience only and that arbitrary line does not really exist.

3) And 'common ancestor' is the surely disproved aspect of any evolulutionary theory. Even Gould said that the Cambrian explosions destoryed gradualist views of evolution

Disproved by who? You cite Gould but he was always a proponent of evolution, he just argued about the timeframe of events, not whether they occurred or not.

 

[Libby von H]

Incorrect.


There is only evolution. It is we who draw a generally arbitrary line and say this is a new species or it is not. That is for our convenience only and that arbitrary line does not really exist.


Disproved by who? You cite Gould but he was always a proponent of evolution, he just argued about the timeframe of events, not whether they occurred or not.

ASctually you couldn't be more wrong. He was the teacher of Kurt Wise and was the one who saved his PhD when the Harvard faculty wanted to deny it because he was a Creationist. To which Gould said (of Wise) "He knows the theory as well as anyone he just thinks it is wrong" So if you want to pick your 'real' PhD's Gould is your enemy not your friend

 

[alang1216]

aaah, but that was an innovaton upon Darwin, HE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did he extend evolution to include the universe.
Get an education. He completely rejected any explanation of where that first living thing came from . So do you

DON"T YOU REMEMBER
the cover story in Europe's leading science magazine, New Scientist, admitting that Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

This "Tree of Life" sketch is seen in Darwin's "B" notebook, at a press preview of the new "Darwin" exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History November 15, 2005 in New York City Read our related editorial: Uprooting Darwin's tree IN JULY 1837, Charles Darwin had a flash of inspiration...

www.newscientist.com

If you read the article you'd see that Darwin's tree was fine as far as it went. Computers finished the job in the 1990s.

You fault Darwin because he drew this:

instead of this:

 

[Libby von H]

If you read the article you'd see that Darwin's tree was fine as far as it went. Computers finished the job in the 1990s.

You fault Darwin because he drew this:

instead of this:

How silly. FIrst of all he himself admits he can find absolutely no reason for the first organism.HE POSITS its existenc.e

And we must if we have one tree ,we must have many to justify the now many major Cambrian sites found in the world
: This flourishing, called the Cambrian explosion, took place within about 25 million years. Fossils from the period have been preserved in rocks at more than 50 known sites worldwide, the most famous of which is Canada's Burgess Shale, discovered in 1909.

And so many of those sub-trees have been utterly overthrown. The Horse for example

"The popular notion that horses started off the size of small dogs and grew progressively bigger is now shown to be false. From the tooth-fossil evidence, MacFadden found that during an explosion in horse diversity some 20 million years ago, many species got smaller as well as larger"

I remember as a child people talking all haughty like you do and showing that stupid chart

I don't care what you believe but stop the lying,(though my debunking will lose you a lot of respect you never deserved)

 

[fncceo]

Until YOU distinguish micro-evolution (the breeds of dogs)from Macro

You seem to be confused by the difference between Artificial Selection (which is man-made) and Natural Selection (which occurs naturally in the environment).

Artificial Selection is a controlled experiment that proves the existence of Natural Selection.

The existence of Natural Selection in no way dimishes the probability that G-d exists.

 

[DudleySmith]

I have scientific training, you do not. Okay

https://www.pinterest.com/offsite/?token=608-283&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthreestoogespictures.info%2Fpardon-my-scotch-starring-the-three-stooges%2Fpardon-my-scotch-mixing-it-up%2F&pin=761460249470474017&client_tracking_params=CwABAAAAEDEyMDAwMDAyMDY3MjU3MzkLAAcAAAAPdW5rbm93bi91bmtub3duAA~0

 

[alang1216]

How silly. FIrst of all he himself admits he can find absolutely no reason for the first organism.HE POSITS its existenc.e

This may come as a shock to you but in the many decades since Darwin lived, science has made lots of progress in the field.

And we must if we have one tree ,we must have many to justify the now many major Cambrian sites found in the world
: This flourishing, called the Cambrian explosion, took place within about 25 million years. Fossils from the period have been preserved in rocks at more than 50 known sites worldwide, the most famous of which is Canada's Burgess Shale, discovered in 1909.

You may feel the Cambrian explosion causes problems for evolution but that is a minority opinion of those with a bias to confirm. Sorry.

And so many of those sub-trees have been utterly overthrown. The Horse for example

"The popular notion that horses started off the size of small dogs and grew progressively bigger is now shown to be false. From the tooth-fossil evidence, MacFadden found that during an explosion in horse diversity some 20 million years ago, many species got smaller as well as larger"

I remember as a child people talking all haughty like you do and showing that stupid chart
View attachment 932629

I don't care what you believe but stop the lying,(though my debunking will lose you a lot of respect you never deserved)

What a surprise that science is complex and that complexity grows as we learn more. Doesn't negate the basic premise that horses evolved:

As the number of equid fossils has increased, the actual evolutionary progression from Eohippus to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multibranched than was initially supposed. Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed.​

​

Although some transitions were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others were relatively abrupt in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Both anagenesis, a gradual change in an entire population ‘s gene frequency, and cladogenesis, a population “splitting” into two distinct evolutionary branches, occurred, and many species coexisted with “ancestor” species at various times.​

​