Darwin destroyed in new book

[Seymour Flops]

So you have no idea.

Nor does anyone else. They have wishful thinking and virtue signaling.

Who cares?

He's a pretty important figure in pushing Darwinism in the 21st century.

No one but NO ONE calls Karl Marx a scientist.

Scientific socialism, also known as Marxism, is a socio-political theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-1800s for the purpose of analyzing the relationships between different economic classes in society from a historic, economic, and scientific perspective.

Scientific Socialism History, Tenets & Applications | Study.com

Learn what scientific socialism is and understand its history. Discover the important tenets of scientific socialism and find out its different...

study.com

You're blathering.

Natural selection is defined by the interaction between the organism and it's niche. Even if the niche is man made or artificially supported.

This is not religion. You have yet to address even a single piece of evidence.

Evidence for Darwinism? No one has presented any.

Will you?

A bacterium will reproduce on a nutrient medium in the lab. However put an antibiotic on the petri dish, and the rate of reproduction slows dramatically. Because most of the bacteria die before they can reproduce.

Sounds like a very intelligently desiged experiment.

The only ones that survive, are the ones that mutate into the new niche. The result is a colony of resistant bacteria, which can be defined as a new species.

Sure, it "can be," if the goal is to fill a desperate need for a new species. That the same bacteria, averaging more resistance than the bacterial before it.

In this case, you have just witnessed biological evolution through natural selection.

How is it "natural" when it was done in a lab in petri dish?

This experiment is repeatable and independently verifiable. It meets the scientific criteria.

Yes, it is a fine experiment to show that a bacteria species will reproduce les in a hostile environment and that those who reproduce will be the ones with more resistance, thus raising the average resistance ability of the colony.

But the resistant individuals had to be there in the first place, in order for them to produce the resistant offpring. No individual became more resistant due to the presence of the anti-biotic. Their offspring survived by being like their resistant parents, not unlike them. How in the world could you think that is a new species?

You are simply willfully ignoring the mountains and mountains of evidence. Your opinion is therefore of no SCIENTIFIC value whatsoever.

Were the mountains of evidence in Darwin's Big Book that he kept promising?

Or where are they?

 

[ding]

I get it. I also get geologic time scales.

And do you get that long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes isn't evidence of slight successive changes?

 

[ding]

Why can't it be both?

Genetic mutations - like changing the number of chromosomes - aren't slight changes or successive changes. Genetic mutations are abrupt changes.

 

[alang1216]

And do you get that long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes isn't evidence of slight successive changes?

You don't get that when selection pressure is high, those slight successive changes happen faster than fossilization can document them.

 

[alang1216]

Genetic mutations - like changing the number of chromosomes - aren't slight changes or successive changes. Genetic mutations are abrupt changes.

I'd say that most genetic mutations don't create new species nor do they persist in the gene pool.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And do you get that long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes isn't evidence of slight successive changes?

Irrelevant, since piles of evidence of gradual, successive changes exists.

That's like saying the sun at high noon is not evidence the sun rises in the east.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'd say that most genetic mutations don't create new species nor do they persist in the gene pool.

The vast majority do not. People have a hard time grasping the large numbers involved, here.

 

[alang1216]

The vast majority do not. People have a hard time grasping the large numbers involved, here.

Or the enormous time spans involved.

 

[ding]

You don't get that when selection pressure is high, those slight successive changes happen faster than fossilization can document them.

I think that's a horseshit excuse for the fossil record not supporting slight successive changes and instead showing long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes. Rather than ignoring the fossil record better to acknowledge that genetics and genetic mutations play a key roll in speciation. It's a much simpler explanation which requires no rationalization that the fossil record didn't accurately reflect evolution. So rather than discarding what the evidence shows, use what the evidence shows.

 

[ding]

I'd say that most genetic mutations don't create new species nor do they persist in the gene pool.

Says the guy who can't explain changes in the number of chromosomes using slight successive changes.

 

[ding]

Irrelevant, since piles of evidence of gradual, successive changes exists.

That's like saying the sun at high noon is not evidence the sun rises in the east.

Sure, just not in the origin of new species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Says the guy who can't explain changes in the number of chromosomes using slight successive changes.

He didn't claim to be a scientist. What he can or cant explain makes no difference.

Apparently you can't explanation it, either.

 

[ding]

He didn't claim to be a scientist. What he can or cant explain makes no difference.

Apparently you can't explanation it, either.

But I can "explanation" it. Genetic mutations explain long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes.

 

[ChemEngineer]

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

This is only a very small sample of quotes from biochemists, mathematicians, paleontologists, geologists and biologists criticizing the evolution fraud. How many more of such quotes would you like me to provide here?

There are thousands of scientists who dissent from Darwinism as it is universally taught in public schools and colleges across America as if it were "science." It is nothing of the sort.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To clarify:

A.chromosome fusion is a type of mutation, or error. Around 1 in 1000 live births today show fused chromosomes.

In a small population dominated by only a few parental or maternal lines, the mutation can come to dominate.

And it did, in one of our ancestral populations. This population then gave rise to Neanderthals, denisovans, and humans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But I can "explanation" it. Genetic mutations explain long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes.

They also explain gradual changes in populations. Mutations explain a lot of things, in evolution. Along with the other mechanisms of evolution.

 

[ChemEngineer]

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.

The chirality of proteins contributes to the statistical impossibility of naturalistic protein synthesis.
Titin is the largest protein in the human body with 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. Since humans are made of 20 different amino acids, the probability of the first naturalistic synthesis of titin is 1/20 to the 38,138th power. Multiply that by 1/2 to the 38,138th power since all amino acid residues in humans are Levorotary, not Dextrorotary.
Then multiply that by 1/2 to the 38,138th power for all peptide bonds, not non-peptide bonds which are equally probable.

That's just the first protein in humans. There are 20,000 more different proteins and an eminent statistician stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th is "impossible." Ten to the 50 marbles 1 cm in diameter would fill trillions of spheres the size of earth. Find one on your first and only try, blindfolded. Then talk to me about your Darwin babble.

Incidentally, all American cars have four tires, a hood, windshield, doors with roll down windows, and radios. Does that mean they all came from one factory and one company, as you Darwinists like to pretend for your fraud?

 

[para bellum]

Incidentally, all American cars have four tires, a hood, windshield, doors with roll down windows, and radios. Does that mean they all came from one factory and one company, as you Darwinists like to pretend for your fraud?

I think you have me confused with the guy who claims automobiles evolved through natural selection.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I think you have me confused with the guy who claims automobiles evolved through natural selection.

No, I am showing you your own nonsense in claiming that similarities prove lineage. The term "evolution" has been applied far and wide, far beyond the fatuous term of "natural selection." It is now a commonly used social term, or didn't you even know that?

Why did you completely ignore the insuperable statistical analysis? Can't refute it in the slightest, can you.

 

[para bellum]

No, I am showing you your own nonsense in claiming that similarities prove lineage. The term "evolution" has been applied far and wide, far beyond the fatuous term of "natural selection." It is now a commonly used social term, or didn't you even know that?

By making a false comparison to an inanimate object?

Sorry retard, I gave at the office.

This thread is about biology, not man-made machines..

And for the record, I did not say it "proved" anything. The other poster was asking for evidence of common ancestry, and I gave two examples of genetic similarities that all organisms share Examples that one would not necessarily expect to find, if there was not a common ancestor.