Darwin: Far From Science

[PoliticalChic]

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.

Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

 

[alang1216]

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.

Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

Again? You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

And he writes......

Despite all the issues Kas Thomas has with scientists and evolution, he is NOT a creationist. What does that tell you?

Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

In the end, you are just an offensive little know nothing. Imagine the nerve it requires for an uneducated slob to insult the life's work of meticulous scientists honestly seeking knowledge. You aren't fit to even mention these people's names.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.

Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

Again? You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.

But I have disproven it.


1. Darwin's erroneous thesis posits that organisms began as the simplest and grow, gradually, into more and more complex ones.....with each level producing new species.


You should read more carefully, as I posted this earlier:

2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:


a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.


Again?

"The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species)."


Perhaps you need a dictionary.





4. "Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013


This is usually where you try to change the subject, isn't it?

As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

 

[PoliticalChic]

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

And he writes......

Despite all the issues Kas Thomas has with scientists and evolution, he is NOT a creationist. What does that tell you?

Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

In the end, you are just an offensive little know nothing. Imagine the nerve it requires for an uneducated slob to insult the life's work of meticulous scientists honestly seeking knowledge. You aren't fit to even mention these people's names.

I may be little, but I know everything.

You helped prove that.


Wanna try again?


The thread stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."



k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!

 

[alang1216]

But I have disproven it.

1. Darwin's erroneous thesis posits that organisms began as the simplest and grow, gradually, into more and more complex ones.....with each level producing new species.

You should read more carefully, as I posted this earlier:

2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:

a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.

Sorry but a. is accepted by science as proven fact. Although there may be other mechanisms, natural selection is also accepted by science as proven fact.

If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.

This makes little biological sense. Are you talking about transitional fossils? If so there are plenty of examples. Archaeopteryx has features not found in living animals.

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.

This is usually where you try to change the subject, isn't it?

As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

This is a straw man since evolution does not dictate simple-to-complex development. There are plenty of examples of organisms becoming 'simpler' by losing functions no longer needed. Whales have mostly lost their hind limbs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But I have disproven it.

1. Darwin's erroneous thesis posits that organisms began as the simplest and grow, gradually, into more and more complex ones.....with each level producing new species.

You should read more carefully, as I posted this earlier:

2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:

a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.

Sorry but a. is accepted by science as proven fact. Although there may be other mechanisms, natural selection is also accepted by science as proven fact.

If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.

This makes little biological sense. Are you talking about transitional fossils? If so there are plenty of examples. Archaeopteryx has features not found in living animals.

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.

This is usually where you try to change the subject, isn't it?

As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

This is a straw man since evolution does not dictate simple-to-complex development. There are plenty of examples of organisms becoming 'simpler' by losing functions no longer needed. Whales have mostly lost their hind limbs.

You're really a moron.....but you get a gold star from the Leftist.....they need folks like you.


I just proved that the fossil record shows the exact opposite of what Darwin supposed...and you post an "Is not, isssss nooootttttt!!!' post.

 

[alang1216]

I just proved that the fossil record shows the exact opposite of what Darwin supposed...and you post an "Is not, isssss nooootttttt!!!' post.

Enlighten me then, what did Darwin suppose? You posted two parts of evolution theory, common descent and natural selection, that are NOT disproved by your straw men, ("partial accumulation of said new traits" and "The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler"). "Sudden" being millions of years of course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just proved that the fossil record shows the exact opposite of what Darwin supposed...and you post an "Is not, isssss nooootttttt!!!' post.

Enlighten me then, what did Darwin suppose? You posted two parts of evolution theory, common descent and natural selection, that are NOT disproved by your straw men, ("partial accumulation of said new traits" and "The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler"). "Sudden" being millions of years of course.

This will be the third time....but, I understand your....limitations.

Now...read carefully:

In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.


In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)


But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.



Get it yet?

While Darwin has been proven wrong.....government schools still teach it as a fact.
Why is that?

 

[alang1216]

diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

The Nature of the Fossil Record

It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. This is precisely what we expect from the following two facts:

(1) Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten by scavengers rather than being buried intact in rock layers. Of the remains that do get fossilized, many are later eroded away, or smeared beyond recognition in metamorphic transformations deep in the earth. This is more of an issue for older rock layers, such as the Cambrian and Precambrian, since they have had more time to be either raised up to the surface for erosion or to be buried more deeply under other rocks. Also, of all the potential fossil-bearing rocks, only a small fraction of them are available near the surface for paleontologists to examine.

(2) Basic population genetics shows that it is difficult for new genetic mutations to become established in very large populations. Thus, it is far more likely that a new species would develop within a small, isolated population, especially if that population is under some environmental stress that would favor genetic changes.


Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism)
Here is a scientific study of diversity and disparity if you're interested.

 

[PoliticalChic]

diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

The Nature of the Fossil Record

It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. This is precisely what we expect from the following two facts:

(1) Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten by scavengers rather than being buried intact in rock layers. Of the remains that do get fossilized, many are later eroded away, or smeared beyond recognition in metamorphic transformations deep in the earth. This is more of an issue for older rock layers, such as the Cambrian and Precambrian, since they have had more time to be either raised up to the surface for erosion or to be buried more deeply under other rocks. Also, of all the potential fossil-bearing rocks, only a small fraction of them are available near the surface for paleontologists to examine.

(2) Basic population genetics shows that it is difficult for new genetic mutations to become established in very large populations. Thus, it is far more likely that a new species would develop within a small, isolated population, especially if that population is under some environmental stress that would favor genetic changes.


Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism)
Here is a scientific study of diversity and disparity if you're interested.

"It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."

I already proved that.


The rest of your post is spin.
Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


The premise of the thread is that Darwin was incorrect, and you've just agreed that the fossil record refutes Darwin.
And, as a result, one should question why government teaches his theory as fact.


Now....why are you back?

 

[PoliticalChic]

diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

The Nature of the Fossil Record

It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. This is precisely what we expect from the following two facts:

(1) Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten by scavengers rather than being buried intact in rock layers. Of the remains that do get fossilized, many are later eroded away, or smeared beyond recognition in metamorphic transformations deep in the earth. This is more of an issue for older rock layers, such as the Cambrian and Precambrian, since they have had more time to be either raised up to the surface for erosion or to be buried more deeply under other rocks. Also, of all the potential fossil-bearing rocks, only a small fraction of them are available near the surface for paleontologists to examine.

(2) Basic population genetics shows that it is difficult for new genetic mutations to become established in very large populations. Thus, it is far more likely that a new species would develop within a small, isolated population, especially if that population is under some environmental stress that would favor genetic changes.


Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism)
Here is a scientific study of diversity and disparity if you're interested.

Your link should be questioned, as it is provably false.
This:
"Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten..."


Actually....

" The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestiveglands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.



Next!

 

[PoliticalChic]

diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

The Nature of the Fossil Record

It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. This is precisely what we expect from the following two facts:

(1) Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten by scavengers rather than being buried intact in rock layers. Of the remains that do get fossilized, many are later eroded away, or smeared beyond recognition in metamorphic transformations deep in the earth. This is more of an issue for older rock layers, such as the Cambrian and Precambrian, since they have had more time to be either raised up to the surface for erosion or to be buried more deeply under other rocks. Also, of all the potential fossil-bearing rocks, only a small fraction of them are available near the surface for paleontologists to examine.

(2) Basic population genetics shows that it is difficult for new genetic mutations to become established in very large populations. Thus, it is far more likely that a new species would develop within a small, isolated population, especially if that population is under some environmental stress that would favor genetic changes.


Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism)
Here is a scientific study of diversity and disparity if you're interested.

"Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism) "

Are there any of the facts I provided disputable?

No?

Soooo....this is your latest attempt to change the subject?

BTW....I read his book: he documents everything he says.

Which books on the subject have you read?

 

[alang1216]

Your link should be questioned, as it is provably false.
This:
"Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten..."

Actually....

" The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestiveglands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Next!

Actually both are true and they don't contradict each other. How many mice have walked the earth? How many have been fossilized?

 

[alang1216]

"It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."

Except that truism does not invalidate evolution, it only points to the gaps in the fossil record. No fossil has ever been found that invalidates evolution. And there have been trillions found.

Now....why are you back?

To bring light to the world.

 

[alang1216]

"Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism) "

Are there any of the facts I provided disputable?

I think I've dispute most of your 'facts' and all of your conclusions.

Which books on the subject have you read?

Mostly textbooks from my college days.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of Darwin’s Doubt? (And you chided me for bringing up creationism) "

Are there any of the facts I provided disputable?

I think I've dispute most of your 'facts' and all of your conclusions.

Which books on the subject have you read?

Mostly textbooks from my college days.

On the contrary.

You've simple refused to accept the facts.


Is this your pic?

 

[alang1216]

You've simple refused to accept the facts.

Please, give me one FACT I've refused to accept.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've simple refused to accept the facts.

Please, give me one FACT I've refused to accept.

You posted this:

"It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."


Proves my premise.

Why are you still scrambling?




I ended any other possible cachet for Darwin with this:

"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.


Why are you back?

 

[alang1216]

You've simple refused to accept the facts.

Please, give me one FACT I've refused to accept.

You posted this:

"It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."

I don't think I ever refused to accept the fact that a may species appear suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. There are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.

I ended any other possible cachet for Darwin with this:

"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.

Why are you back?

Another fact I never disputed. I only pointed out that it proves nothing. We've never seen an atom but we're pretty sure they exist.