Darwin destroyed in new book

[ChemEngineer]

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.

You claim the "comparison" is "false" because it exposes the nonsense you prattled by analogy. Gravity is an inanimate force, and yet you Darwinists ALWAYS compare evolution as "factual" as gravity.
So when you say something, it's always gospel science.
When anyone refutes you, you make up silly stories and call them stupid.

I sent critiques of Richard Dawkins' books to his publisher and the best he could do is the same thing as you, call me names. The same was true of Isaac Asimov, a vile, hateful, bitter atheist.

I sold his postcard for $75 on E-Bay and Carl Sagan's letter for $125.
Sagan was more polite than Dawkins or Asimov and merely asked me to buy his latest book. I never bought any of them but checked them out at the library.

A fellow I met on another message board just finished my book and loved it. A medical doctor called it "beyond incredible". "Required reading for every literate human."

Your claim to intellectual fame is what? Please tell this cyberaudience. I'm sure they would love to know.

P.S. I just made an offer on Twitter to give $20,000 to each of the first four residents of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Minnesota, and Arizona to provide information leading to the arrest and conviction of Democrats illegally stuffing ballot boxes in the 2020 presidential race. What have you done for your country this year? Or last? The cyberaudience would love to know that as well.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Another aspect the book explores is how desperate Darwin was to contribute to science. His degree was in general studies, I gather much like our multidisciplinary studies degree for people who bounced back-and-forth between majors. In those days that was typical preparation to be a clergyman.

But Darwin hated the idea of being a country preacher. So he became his self taught scientist. He’s spent eight years studying barnacles of different varieties the work he produced on it did contribute to science, so he could credibly call himself a scientist.

A lot of origin of species amounts to arguing against creationism, which was of course the dominant Belief at the time. His desire to both contribute a new theory and to.argue against creationism seems to be the driving motivation for promoting his ideas.

He was forced to publish too soon because another scientist had sent one of his mentors a paper proposing the same idea. He feared the other guy would want credit, but it turned out he was a non-ego driven person who was happy in the jungles of South America, living among the natives and studying the plants.

 

[ding]

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

And if it occurred in enough numbers across a herd and offered a functional advantage?

It's just statistics and time. If it is possible to occur it will eventually. So the question then is it really an error? Or is it how nature fills her needs?

 

[para bellum]

A lot of origin of species amounts to arguing against creationism, which was of course the dominant Belief at the time. His desire to both contribute a new theory and to.argue against creationism seems to be the driving motivation for promoting his ideas.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is over. Creationism can not be disproved, it's not under threat.

The theory of biological evolution can be disproved- find something that doesn't fit. Like a flowering plant that existed before insects came along. Or a true chimera like a mermaid or a centaur- a creature that is a combination of diverse and separate lineages, rather than the sort of nested lineage structure we observe, that shows organisms that change over time.

 

[scruffy]

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?

Horseshit.

 

[scruffy]

Another aspect the book explores is how desperate Darwin was to contribute to science. His degree was in general studies, I gather much like our multidisciplinary studies degree for people who bounced back-and-forth between majors. In those days that was typical preparation to be a clergyman.

But Darwin hated the idea of being a country preacher. So he became his self taught scientist. He’s spent eight years studying barnacles of different varieties the work he produced on it did contribute to science, so he could credibly call himself a scientist.

A lot of origin of species amounts to arguing against creationism, which was of course the dominant Belief at the time. His desire to both contribute a new theory and to.argue against creationism seems to be the driving motivation for promoting his ideas.

He was forced to publish too soon because another scientist had sent one of his mentors a paper proposing the same idea. He feared the other guy would want credit, but it turned out he was a non-ego driven person who was happy in the jungles of South America, living among the natives and studying the plants.

Yawn.

It's fun watching you clowns jump through hoops though.

 

[scruffy]

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

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

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

Evidence for Darwinism? No one has presented any.

Will you?

Sounds like a very intelligently desiged experiment.

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.

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

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?

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

Or where are they?

You seem to suffer from something resembling TDS. Only it's... y'know... DDS.

Listen to yourself:

But the resistant individuals had to be there in the first place, in order for them to produce the resistant offpring

lmao

You just don't get it.

Probably never will.

Because your mind is sealed tighter than a trap door.

But meanwhile the rest of us are cataloguing proteins and creating synthetic life forms.

(And studying topology)

Son, the word you're looking for (in the above quote) is "mutation".

The egg came first. It mutated from a Japanese monster and became a chicken.

Chickens succeeded because they found a niche. People give them feed just so they'll have nothing better to do all day but sit around and eat and reproduce. Now there's millions of them, we can't even eat them fast enough.

 

[Hollie]

"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.

Yes. Your only contribution to threads is cutting and pasting ''quotes'' you steal from Harun Yahya.

As usual, dishonest hyper-religious hacks dump these edited, parsed and altered ''quotes'' with no regard for accuracy.

 

[Hollie]

Another aspect the book explores is how desperate Darwin was to contribute to science. His degree was in general studies, I gather much like our multidisciplinary studies degree for people who bounced back-and-forth between majors. In those days that was typical preparation to be a clergyman.

But Darwin hated the idea of being a country preacher. So he became his self taught scientist. He’s spent eight years studying barnacles of different varieties the work he produced on it did contribute to science, so he could credibly call himself a scientist.

A lot of origin of species amounts to arguing against creationism, which was of course the dominant Belief at the time. His desire to both contribute a new theory and to.argue against creationism seems to be the driving motivation for promoting his ideas.

He was forced to publish too soon because another scientist had sent one of his mentors a paper proposing the same idea. He feared the other guy would want credit, but it turned out he was a non-ego driven person who was happy in the jungles of South America, living among the natives and studying the plants.

^^^ This latest tirade is the last, desperate resort of the religious extremist. Attack Darwin's character because they can't refute the theory.

It's funny to watch the hyper-religious bang away at their keyboards while they resort to these emotional outbursts.

Literally nothing has been offered to refute biological evolution.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Do you really believe that a species survives for a million years, then an individual has a gene mutation and a new species appears? Sounds miraculous to me. Of course others will also have to have that mutation or the trait would be lost.

 

[alang1216]

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

It may sound like a major event to you but it is actually not.

This type of mutation is probably a lot more common than most people realize; for example, here's an article about a person who has a homozygous mutation of chromosomes 14 and 15. In fact, according to Zhao et al. 2015, similarly abnormal karyotypes may be found in more than 1/1000 people, though most will go their whole lives without ever knowing it.​

 

[ding]

Do you really believe that a species survives for a million years, then an individual has a gene mutation and a new species appears? Sounds miraculous to me. Of course others will also have to have that mutation or the trait would be lost.

That's what the data shows.

 

[ding]

It may sound like a major event to you but it is actually not.

This type of mutation is probably a lot more common than most people realize; for example, here's an article about a person who has a homozygous mutation of chromosomes 14 and 15. In fact, according to Zhao et al. 2015, similarly abnormal karyotypes may be found in more than 1/1000 people, though most will go their whole lives without ever knowing it.​

That's exactly my point though. It's not a major event. It's an abrupt change that took. There could have been many that didn't take.

 

[alang1216]

That's what the data shows.

That is what you wish it to show. Why, I'm not sure.

 

[ding]

That is what you wish it to show. Why, I'm not sure.

No, that's what it shows. Which is why you wrote...

...slight successive changes happen faster than fossilization can document them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I really don't understand what all the fuss is over. Creationism can not be disproved, it's not under threat.

Creationism as a belief is not under threat in the United States. People are free to believe as they choose. As yet, we are not running re-education camps to bring about changes of opinion.

What is under threat is the right to believe in creationism, intelligent design, or any other ideas that are not Darwinian natural selection, without losing other rights. I always go back to the textbook sticker example. If encouraging students to think critically, and have an open mind is banned when discussing Darwinism, intellectual freedom is truly lost. I don't know if it ever went through, but there was a group a few years ago trying to go after students whose schools de-emphasized Darwin by declaring them ineligible for college due to not having learned science correctly.

The theory of biological evolution can be disproved- find something that doesn't fit. Like a flowering plant that existed before insects came along. Or a true chimera like a mermaid or a centaur- a creature that is a combination of diverse and separate lineages, rather than the sort of nested lineage structure we observe, that shows organisms that change over time.

It could be disproved that way, if it were not such an emotional issue for its believers. Anything that doesn't fit would simply be explained away, or the theory adjusted to allow for whatever doesn't fit. Darwin in Origin of Species used the phrase "explain away" more than once.

 

[alang1216]

That's exactly my point though. It's not a major event. It's an abrupt change that took. There could have been many that didn't take.

Not sure what your point is. In my example, "most will go their whole lives without ever knowing it", it seems the mutation did not create a new species but natural selection would have no effect so it either survived or it did not.

 

[ding]

Not sure what your point is. In my example, "most will go their whole lives without ever knowing it", it seems the mutation did not create a new species but natural selection would have no effect so it either survived or it did not.

Right, not all mutations take or result in new species. Just the ones that occur in sufficient numbers and provide a functional advantage. Nature is like a single organism. Everything is connected. When a need exists, nature fills the void on her own.

 

[AHZ]

Bullshit.

Stop talking shit, and address the 80 MILLION pieces of converging scientific evidence from 18 independent lines of inquiry.

the point is that darwinian zealotry becomes an argument for 'might makes right' immorality in the hands of manipulative nihilist war sophists and the sheeple who listen to their dumb shit.

 

[para bellum]

Creationism as a belief is not under threat in the United States. People are free to believe as they choose. As yet, we are not running re-education camps to bring about changes of opinion.

What is under threat is the right to believe in creationism, intelligent design, or any other ideas that are not Darwinian natural selection, without losing other rights. I always go back to the textbook sticker example. If encouraging students to think critically, and have an open mind is banned when discussing Darwinism, intellectual freedom is truly lost. I don't know if it ever went through, but there was a group a few years ago trying to go after students whose schools de-emphasized Darwin by declaring them ineligible for college due to not having learned science correctly.

Well, I have no problem with creationism. I don't want it taught as science- it belongs in philosophy. All tribes of man have their creation stories. To me they are fascinating. I think there was a tribe in South America that said men came from the vomit of a bat! I like that one, lol.

A course on creationism could cover a different version every week, it would be very interesting to me.

It could be disproved that way, if it were not such an emotional issue for its believers. Anything that doesn't fit would simply be explained away, or the theory adjusted to allow for whatever doesn't fit. Darwin in Origin of Species used the phrase "explain away" more than once.

The examples I gave could not be dismissed so easily. They are completely contrary to the theory. Where did the mermaid come from? How can humans and fish ever interbreed? They are genetically incompatible.

Biologists don't accept evolution because it's emotionally attractive- they accept it because it works. It is the framework that ties it all together, helps them understand the similarities and differences between species. Something that doesn't conform would be like an atomic bomb to the conventional understanding of how it all works.