Darwin destroyed in new book

[Seymour Flops]

So to recap your false claims, the evidence for evolutionary biology has been confirmed. You choose to ignore the vast evidence for evolutionary processes and change over time in biological organisms. You wish to somehow denigrate the conceptual and factual status of biological evolution, and yet can not do so using denial and sidestepping.

This thread is about Darwinian evolution, not evolution in general.

The fact is, common descent predicts a pattern of nested hierarchy , or groups within groups. Consistent with the prediction, we see those arrangement in unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchies, the so-called tree of life. Fossil animals fit in the same hierarchical tree of life. We find cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

I did not dispute the common descent idea. I’m merely asked for some details about it. I don’t know why that seems to frighten and anger people.

I’ll try again:

Did all life on earth descend from a single common ancestor or from several common ancestors? Provide evidence for either idea. I don’t know is a completely acceptable answer here.

Describe the process by which the single, or the several common ancestors evolved from nonliving material?

 

[Hollie]

This thread is about Darwinian evolution, not evolution in general.

I did not dispute the common descent idea. I’m merely asked for some details about it. I don’t know why that seems to frighten and anger people.

I’ll try again:

Did all life on earth descend from a single common ancestor or from several common ancestors? Provide evidence for either idea. I don’t know is a completely acceptable answer here.

Describe the process by which the single, or the several common ancestors evolved from nonliving material?

It seems you don't understand that Darwin set forth a framework of methodology for biological evolution.

Identify for us the differences in "Darwinian evolution not evolution in general.". That literally makes no sense.

All life shows similar patterns of basic unity in the mechanisms of replication, metabolism and heritability. Distribution of species across the planet is consistent with their evolutionary and biological history. Marsupials are largely limited to the Australian continent. Continental drift and the isolation as a result explain the exceptions. Isloated islands will have groups of species that are very diverse in adaptive behavior and general appearance but are closely related in terms of their genetics.

I'll try again. Abiogenesis is not evolutionary biology. Further,

Lets see the creationers present their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”, present the evidence for their gods and we can compare theories for supporting evidence.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It seems you don't understand that Darwin set forth a framework of methodology for biological evolution.

Identify for us the differences in "Darwinian evolution not evolution in general.". That literally makes no sense.

Should I be snotty and say “Google the term non-Darwinian evolution?”

No, I shouldn’t. I’m not going to stoop to that level, nor ridicule you for believing that Darwinism and evolution are the exact same thing.

Evolution was talked about in debated long before the birth of Charles Darwin. The ancient Greeks discussed complex organisms evolving from semper ones. Various mechanisms were proposed. some theorized that an acquired characteristic could be passed on to an offspring. An example given was a short necked giraffe stretching to reach leaves in a tree and because of that having offspring with a slightly longer neck who Would also stretch to reach leaves and on it would go until we have the giraffe we see now.

Lamarck wrote a work in 1809 in which he theorized that some mysterious force has propelled organisms into greater complexity over generations. He theorized that changes that were made use of by the organism would be kept, and those not used with fade away.

And, of course, there have always been people who believe that today’s complex organisms evolved from simpler ones, but that this evolution was guided by an intelligent force.

Your friend Ry gave an example of that when he discussed the experiment with yeast.

All of these theories suffer from the same inadequacy as Darwin, namely, lack of evidence to support them.

All life shows similar patterns of basic unity in the mechanisms of replication, metabolism and heritability. Distribution of species across the planet is consistent with their evolutionary and biological history. Marsupials are largely limited to the Australian continent. Continental drift and the isolation as a result explain the exceptions. Isloated islands will have groups of species that are very diverse in adaptive behavior and general appearance but are closely related in terms of their genetics.

Those slight changes due to geographical isolation are better explained by genetic drift with no driving goal than by any “selfish gene” theory or “survival of the fittest. “

I'll try again. Abiogenesis is not evolutionary biology.

Of course it is, if you claim that life evolved from non-life. What is your best guess on how life began on earth? Richard Dawkins best idea is that space aliens could have brought it here. What is your opinion of that scientific theory?

Further,

Lets see the creationers present their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”, present the evidence for their gods and we can compare theories for supporting evidence.

Yes, yes, that would be very entertaining for me to watch. I wouldn’t be involved in that since I don’t promote either theory.

 

[Hollie]

Should I be snotty and say “Google the term non-Darwinian evolution?”

No, I shouldn’t. I’m not going to stoop to that level, nor ridicule you for believing that Darwinism and evolution are the exact same thing.

Evolution was talked about in debated long before the birth of Charles Darwin. The ancient Greeks disgusted. Various mechanisms were proposed some theorized that un acquired characteristic could be passed on to an offspring. An example given was a short act, giraffe stretching to reach leaves in a tree and because of that having offspring with a slightly longer neck Would also stretch to reach leaves and on it would go until we have the giraffe. We see now.

Lamarck wrote a work in 1809 in which girls deed the process, some mysterious force has an item, propelling organisms into greater complexity over generations. He theorized that changes that were made use of by the organism would be kept, and those not used with fade away.

And, of course, there have always been people who believe that, today’s complex organisms evolved from simpler ones, but that this evolution was guided by anu intelligent force.

All of these theories suffer from the same inadequacy as Darwin, namely, lack of evidence to support them.

Those light changes due to geographical isolation are better explained by genetic drift with no driving goal done by any “selfish gene” theory or “survival of the fittest. “

Of course it is, if you claim that life evolved from non-life.

Yes, yes, that would be very entertaining for me to watch. I wouldn’t be involved in that since I don’t promote either theory.

As you're using slogans typically found at places like the ICR, ie: "Darwinism", why not a'splain what that means as opposed to your term, "evolution in general". Does the ICR provide a description? What separates Darwinian evolution from evolution in general?

What was this "mysterious force" claimed by Lamarck? Has the force been dormant since 1809,?

Similarly, what "intelligent force" is driving evolution? Did this intelligent force drive evolution of the cancer cell?

All your mysterious and / or claimed interventions by gods suffer the same failures. Nothing to support them. Biological evolution, on the other hand, has undeniable and supportable evidence.

Define a "light change". The fact are, changes in population due to environmental pressures is what drive evolution.

It really is remarkable how you claim to despise the very notion of evolution yet you offer examples of that very process.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really?

What are some of the experiments that have tested Darwin‘s theory?

He has asked this question many times with many screennames. And it has been directly answered to him many times.

Do not feed the sealions.

 

[ReinyDays]

This thread is about Darwin who wrote a book promising to soon provide evidence of speciation via natural selection.

Good. Stick with random babbling, then, and leave off defending Holleys lack of answers.

You have your answer ... plugging your ears and screaming "nah nah nah I can't hear you" doesn't change that ...

Seymour ... you flopped ... [giggle] ...

Do you not think the Baltimore Oriole and Bullock's Oriole are different species? ... because if they are, that's evolution ... the Northern Oriole species becomes two species, straight up Darwin's evolution ... survival of the fittest ... the math and chemistry wasn't understood until the middle of the 20th Century ...

Origin of Species is not considered part of the scientific literature ... it has never passed peer-review ... it doesn't pass religious tests ... or were you not aware the Church of England controlled the Royal Society in 1859? ... de jure ...

 

[Seymour Flops]

As you're using slogans typically found at places like the ICR, ie: "Darwinism", why not a'splain what that means as opposed to your term, "evolution in general". Does the ICR provide a description?

I don’t know what the “ICR” is.

Darwinism is a hypothesis that the variety of species on earth evolved through what Darwin called “natural selection” but he would explain was not really selection at all. Rather it was the idea that a change to an organism either make it more likely to survive and reproduce, or make it less likely to survive, or reproduce. Those more likely would pass their genetic changes, and those less likely would not.

What separates Darwinian evolution from evolution in general?

Evolution is simply the belief that organisms have changed overtime creating more complex species descended from less complex species.

What was this "mysterious force" claimed by Lamarck? Has the force been dormant since 1809,?

I don’t know. I am not a promoter of that theory.

Similarly, what "intelligent force" is driving evolution? Did this intelligent force drive evolution of the cancer cell?

I don’t know what the intelligent force is. I am not a promoter of that theory. I don’t believe it was space aliens, though. If the intelligent force created life, that would include cancer cells.

All your mysterious and / or claimed interventions by gods suffer the same failures. Nothing to support them. Biological evolution, on the other hand, has undeniable and supportable evidence.

That is what Darwin said. But he never produce the evidence. Nor has anyone else.

Define a "light change". The fact are, changes in population due to environmental pressures is what drive evolution.

Sorry, I meant slight change. How is that a fact? What proof you have of that?

It really is remarkable how you claim to despise the very notion of evolution yet you offer examples of that very process.

It’s remarkable that you think I claimed to despise the very notion of evolution when I never claimed that.

Was there ever a poster on this forum with a similar screen name to mine? Maybe that was the one who made all these statements and claims you erroneously described to me.

 

[Hollie]

I don’t know what the “ICR” is.

Darwinism is a hypothesis that the variety of species on earth evolved through what Darwin called “natural selection” but he would explain was not really selection at all. Rather it was the idea that a change to an organism either make it more likely to survive and reproduce, or make it less likely to survive, or reproduce. Those more likely would pass their genetic changes, and those less likely would not.

Evolution is simply the belief that organisms have changed overtime creating more complex species descended from less complex species.

I don’t know. I am not a promoter of that theory.

I don’t know what the intelligent force is. I am not a promoter of that theory. I don’t believe it was space aliens, though. If the intelligent force created life, that would include cancer cells.

That is what Darwin said. But he never produce the evidence. Nor has anyone else.

Sorry, I meant slight change. How is that a fact? What proof you have of that?

It’s remarkable that you think I claimed to despise the very notion of evolution when I never claimed that.

Was there ever a poster on this forum with a similar screen name to mine? Maybe that was the one who made all these statements and claims you erroneously described to me.

So what is "Darwinism", as opposed to your term, "evolution in general"?

Your religonism is really hostile to the precepts of biological evolution. Yet, You insist your religionism is something other than fundamentalist dogma right out of the ICR.

It's another fallacy that evolution necessarily moves from less to more complex. Evolution is not directional. It does not advance linearly or directionally from simple to complex. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target. Natural selection decides what genetic variation promote fitness and similarly, those genetic variations which hinders fitness. It is populations which experience a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. This results in the corresponding physical traits that promote fitness evolving in the direction of even greater fitness. Genetic variation is constantly being added by mutations on the DNA molecule.


"This is what Darwin said".

Then it should be a simple thing to produce the exact citation.

It's remarkable that you propose to deny your revulsion for the very notion of evolution and the varied science disciplines that support it. You argue against it, yet, you often get tripped up by conceding the very science you seek to deny.

 

[alang1216]

I would say his arguments are wrongfully used to justify immoral might makes right behavior, and a general demoralization of humanity.

Alas for all of us, the world is not how we wish it to be. If God made this world, evolution was a tool. If you don't like what or how God created, your problem is with God, not with Darwin.

 

[AHZ]

Alas for all of us, the world is not how we wish it to be. If God made this world, evolution was a tool. If you don't like what or how God created, your problem is with God, not with Darwin.

you're a case in point.

our intelligence and cooperation is our evolutionary ace in the hole.

that's why the marxist divide and conquer is anti-human.

teaching "make might right" as the m.o. for humans is a dehumanization, and a demoralization.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you're a case in point.

our intelligence and cooperation is our evolutionary ace in the hole.

that's why the marxist divide and conquer is anti-human.

teaching "make might right" as the m.o. for humans is a dehumanization, and a demoralization.

Haha what is this nonsense

 

[AHZ]

Haha what is this nonsense

It's called truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's called truth.

Maybe in crazyland

 

[para bellum]

Did all life on earth descend from a single common ancestor or from several common ancestors? Provide evidence for either idea. I don’t know is a completely acceptable answer here.

Chirality of DNA is one thing that argues for a single common ancestor. There is no scientific reason why all DNA must be a right hand helix- it just is.

If there were multiple common ancestors, one could expect some DNA to be right handed, and some to be left handed, because they would come from a different origin.

But all organisms have right handed DNA, and all organisms share a lot of genetic code, and those things argue for a common ancestor.

 

[alang1216]

you're a case in point.

our intelligence and cooperation is our evolutionary ace in the hole.

that's why the marxist divide and conquer is anti-human.

teaching "make might right" as the m.o. for humans is a dehumanization, and a demoralization.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So what is "Darwinism", as opposed to your term, "evolution in general"?

I answered that is post 227, the one you obviously did not read, but just hit the "reply" button. I explained it in two paragraphs, one that starts "Darwinism is . . ." and one that starts "Evolution is simply . . . "

Your religonism is really hostile to the precepts of biological evolution. Yet, You insist your religionism is something other than fundamentalist dogma right out of the ICR.

It's another fallacy that evolution necessarily moves from less to more complex. Evolution is not directional. It does not advance linearly or directionally from simple to complex. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target. Natural selection decides what genetic variation promote fitness and similarly, those genetic variations which hinders fitness. It is populations which experience a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. This results in the corresponding physical traits that promote fitness evolving in the direction of even greater fitness. Genetic variation is constantly being added by mutations on the DNA molecule.


"This is what Darwin said".

Then it should be a simple thing to produce the exact citation.

It's remarkable that you propose to deny your revulsion for the very notion of evolution and the varied science disciplines that support it. You argue against it, yet, you often get tripped up by conceding the very science you seek to deny.

Nah.

If you're not going to read what I write, I have no need to read what you write.

See ya!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Chirality of DNA is one thing that argues for a single common ancestor. There is no scientific reason why all DNA must be a right hand helix- it just is.

If there were multiple common ancestors, one could expect some DNA to be right handed, and some to be left handed, because they would come from a different origin.

Yes, that does argue for a common ancestor. Or some property of molecules that when they become self-replicating, they tend to replicate in a right hand configuration. Or some other reason that we dont' get.

But a common ancestor is certainly one reasonable explanation for the similarity.

But all organisms have right handed DNA, and all organisms share a lot of genetic code, and those things argue for a common ancestor.

Yes, sharing a lot of gentic code argues as strongly for a common ancestor as it does for a common designer.

Would you be offended if I asked how life first came out of non-life?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you not think the Baltimore Oriole and Bullock's Oriole are different species? ... because if they are, that's evolution ... the Northern Oriole species becomes two species, straight up Darwin's evolution ... survival of the fittest ... the math and chemistry wasn't understood until the middle of the 20th Century ...

How was Bullock's Oriole better fit than the Baltimore Oriole from which it descended?

Origin of Species is not considered part of the scientific literature ... it has never passed peer-review ... it doesn't pass religious tests ... or were you not aware the Church of England controlled the Royal Society in 1859? ... de jure ...

No, Darwin's work was not at all appealing to scientists of the time. The scientific community had rigid standards, inisting that theories be tested with evidence and experimentation, not what ifs piled on suppositions, and butressed by assumptions. But his book sold like hotcakes in bookstores! The non-scientific folk loved it.

The scientists gracefully witheld harshly judging Darwin awaiting his promised mountains of evidence that never was produced.

 

[Hollie]

I answered that is post 227, the one you obviously did not read, but just hit the "reply" button. I explained it in two paragraphs, one that starts "Darwinism is . . ." and one that starts "Evolution is simply . . . "

Nah.

If you're not going to read what I write, I have no need to read what you write.

See ya!

That was quite the melodramatic exit. It seems your religionism causes you some confusion as to what Darwin proposed as a theory vs. your description of something you define as “regular evolution”.

Biological evolution defines a change in the genetic characteristics of populations over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. It seems the greatest objection to Darwin’s theory comes the religious entities. Changes in populations by purely natural mechanisms tends to diminish the efficacy of various gods and their claimed handiwork.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you not think the Baltimore Oriole and Bullock's Oriole are different species? ... because if they are, that's evolution ... the Northern Oriole species becomes two species, straight up Darwin's evolution ... survival of the fittest ... the math and chemistry wasn't understood until the middle of the 20th Century ...

How was Bullock's Oriole better fit than the Baltimore Oriole from which it descended?

Origin of Species is not considered part of the scientific literature ... it has never passed peer-review ... it doesn't pass religious tests ... or were you not aware the Church of England controlled the Royal Society in 1859? ... de jure ...

No, Darwin's work was not at all appealing to scientists of the time. The scientific community had rigid standards, inisting that theories be tested with evidence and experimentation, not what ifs piled on suppositions, and butressed by assumptions. But his book sold like hotcakes in bookstores! The non-scientific folk loved it.

The scientists gracefully witheld harshly judging Darwin awaiting his promised mountains of evidence that never was produced.