Darwin: Fossils or Fruit Flies?

[PoliticalChic]

1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.






2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?

For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.

3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53

According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.





4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila



5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.


Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.





So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.

Or else it is not evolution.

"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.




5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.

a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?


b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





This means that it is impossible for an organism to be built by natural selection working on small changes, i.e., Darwin's theory.

Neither fossils nor fruit flies lend credence to Darwinian evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. There is one more factor that argues against the regulatory DNA idea:

after such changes as the extra wing in the above Drosophila, ....the organism regularly goes right back to the way it originally was!

It un-evolves!





And this in not the only case of organisms returning to pre-alteration states!


8. In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found changes in beak shape!

a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner



So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


Still some folks looking for proof of Darwin's theory.....

...and they're out there with Diogenes.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

 

[dilloduck]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

1. "]There is no "proof" in Science,..."
You are clueless as to what science is.
Begin with the 'scientific method.' It differentiates science from philosophy and politics.



2. "....evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts..."
And I have provided same....disproving Darwin's thesis.


3. "...because you know very little about blah blah blah...."
I have actually provided a clear refutation of another aspect of Darwinian evolution.
In refusing to confront same, you have identified yourself as a drone, simply mouthing what you have been told to.


4. "...refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs..."
This is the default excuse of the Darwin-drones.
Provide your evidence.....it is more than dispositive that you have not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks so much for the family photos.

Your simian countenance suggests a heritage unusually rich in species diversity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW....I was lucky enough to visit the Sistine Chapel both before the ceiling was restored, cleaned, and after.

The image you provided appears like the before....but if you get to see the cleaned image, you will be struck by how clearly is is the side view of a cerebrum.

Michelangelo was 'commenting' on God not only giving life, but giving man intelligence.



As far as your attempted slur, "What Christians think," you are one of those who missed out on intelligence, since the pic is God giving life, and science doesn't know how life began.


Further, it is mislabeled in specifying "Christians," as it refers to all religious folk.




" In 1990, physician Frank Meshberger published a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association deciphering Michelangelo’s imagery with the stunning recognition that the depiction in God Creating Adam in the central panel on the ceiling was a perfect anatomical illustration of the human brain in cross section. Meshberger speculates that Michelangelo surrounded God with a shroud representing the human brain to suggest that God was endowing Adam not only with life, but also with supreme human intelligence."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...l-a-juxtaposition-of-god-and-the-human-brain/

 

[Steven_R]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

It should be, but isn't. Science can look at what Darwin wrote, see that he was right on XY&Z, but didn't get AB&C and put it in context of later findings. His work was the foundation frame the rest of biology hung on and as he was found wrong in areas, science adjusted to new findings.

But the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung and treat it as an all or nothing proposition. If Darwin got anything wrong, then everything was wrong and the conversation has to stop immediately.

It would be laughable if the Holy Rollers didn't have the political power they do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

It should be, but isn't. Science can look at what Darwin wrote, see that he was right on XY&Z, but didn't get AB&C and put it in context of later findings. His work was the foundation frame the rest of biology hung on and as he was found wrong in areas, science adjusted to new findings.

But the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung and treat it as an all or nothing proposition. If Darwin got anything wrong, then everything was wrong and the conversation has to stop immediately.

It would be laughable if the Holy Rollers didn't have the political power they do.

"...the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung...."

Actually, what you state is the exact opposite of reality.

Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects.


In truth, the fate of Marxism is the reason Leftists require Darwin to be accepted at true.


1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



2. Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries





It appears that you don't have the education, in either science or in history, required to understand either.




3. BTW....The OP was based on science, not religion in any way. But since you Darwin drones cannot deal with the science, the attempt is always to bring in religion.

....your antipathy toward religion stems from the same source as your love of Darwin.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses."
The Schwarz Report | Essays



Too bad you never had the strength to question the propaganda you've been 'taught.'

 

[dilloduck]

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

It should be, but isn't. Science can look at what Darwin wrote, see that he was right on XY&Z, but didn't get AB&C and put it in context of later findings. His work was the foundation frame the rest of biology hung on and as he was found wrong in areas, science adjusted to new findings.

But the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung and treat it as an all or nothing proposition. If Darwin got anything wrong, then everything was wrong and the conversation has to stop immediately.

It would be laughable if the Holy Rollers didn't have the political power they do.

"...the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung...."

Actually, what you state is the exact opposite of reality.

Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects.


In truth, the fate of Marxism is the reason Leftists require Darwin to be accepted at true.


1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



2. Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries





It appears that you don't have the education, in either science or in history, required to understand either.




3. BTW....The OP was based on science, not religion in any way. But since you Darwin drones cannot deal with the science, the attempt is always to bring in religion.

....your antipathy toward religion stems from the same source as your love of Darwin.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses."
The Schwarz Report | Essays



Too bad you never had the strength to question the propaganda you've been 'taught.'

Hmmmmm I wonder if this could be why the establishment of Natural law and natural rights are stressed so much these days. They are far more predictable than God.

 

[HenryBHough]

Democrats are the living proof that species can devolve as well as evolve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It should be, but isn't. Science can look at what Darwin wrote, see that he was right on XY&Z, but didn't get AB&C and put it in context of later findings. His work was the foundation frame the rest of biology hung on and as he was found wrong in areas, science adjusted to new findings.

But the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung and treat it as an all or nothing proposition. If Darwin got anything wrong, then everything was wrong and the conversation has to stop immediately.

It would be laughable if the Holy Rollers didn't have the political power they do.

"...the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung...."

Actually, what you state is the exact opposite of reality.

Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects.


In truth, the fate of Marxism is the reason Leftists require Darwin to be accepted at true.


1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



2. Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries





It appears that you don't have the education, in either science or in history, required to understand either.




3. BTW....The OP was based on science, not religion in any way. But since you Darwin drones cannot deal with the science, the attempt is always to bring in religion.

....your antipathy toward religion stems from the same source as your love of Darwin.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses."
The Schwarz Report | Essays



Too bad you never had the strength to question the propaganda you've been 'taught.'

Hmmmmm I wonder if this could be why the establishment of Natural law and natural rights are stressed so much these days. They are far more predictable than God.

Have you seen this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/343308-the-problem-with-justice.html

 

[Steven_R]

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

It should be, but isn't. Science can look at what Darwin wrote, see that he was right on XY&Z, but didn't get AB&C and put it in context of later findings. His work was the foundation frame the rest of biology hung on and as he was found wrong in areas, science adjusted to new findings.

But the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung and treat it as an all or nothing proposition. If Darwin got anything wrong, then everything was wrong and the conversation has to stop immediately.

It would be laughable if the Holy Rollers didn't have the political power they do.

"...the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung...."

Actually, what you state is the exact opposite of reality.

Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects.


In truth, the fate of Marxism is the reason Leftists require Darwin to be accepted at true.


1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



2. Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries





It appears that you don't have the education, in either science or in history, required to understand either.




3. BTW....The OP was based on science, not religion in any way. But since you Darwin drones cannot deal with the science, the attempt is always to bring in religion.

....your antipathy toward religion stems from the same source as your love of Darwin.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses."
The Schwarz Report | Essays



Too bad you never had the strength to question the propaganda you've been 'taught.'

Neither science nor Darwin are invalidated just because politicians and philosophers use it to justify their political and philosophical positions.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

There is no evidence that discredits Darwin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It should be, but isn't. Science can look at what Darwin wrote, see that he was right on XY&Z, but didn't get AB&C and put it in context of later findings. His work was the foundation frame the rest of biology hung on and as he was found wrong in areas, science adjusted to new findings.

But the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung and treat it as an all or nothing proposition. If Darwin got anything wrong, then everything was wrong and the conversation has to stop immediately.

It would be laughable if the Holy Rollers didn't have the political power they do.

"...the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung...."

Actually, what you state is the exact opposite of reality.

Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects.


In truth, the fate of Marxism is the reason Leftists require Darwin to be accepted at true.


1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



2. Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries





It appears that you don't have the education, in either science or in history, required to understand either.




3. BTW....The OP was based on science, not religion in any way. But since you Darwin drones cannot deal with the science, the attempt is always to bring in religion.

....your antipathy toward religion stems from the same source as your love of Darwin.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses."
The Schwarz Report | Essays



Too bad you never had the strength to question the propaganda you've been 'taught.'

Neither science nor Darwin are invalidated just because politicians and philosophers use it to justify their political and philosophical positions.

Glad that you've retreated from the attempt to bring in religion.


And, here, again, is the reason that Darwin is " invalidated."

"Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects."




The support of Marxists, and it's necessity for Marxism, is the reason for Darwin's continued, or enforced, elevation.

Real scientists don't support it....but many know that they will lose benefactions if they admit same.
It's good for a paycheck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no "proof" in Science, Politicalchic. There is only evidence in support of a theory or evidence that detracts from a theory's fit with the evidence and efficacy to make accurate predictions.

I will not discuss the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection with you because you know very little about what it means and refuse to accept any evidence which supports it based on your personal beliefs - whatever those beliefs are. If you cannot discuss facts as facts, then discussing the theory which attempts to make sense of those facts makes no sense at all.

I would imagine that there is evidence that supports Darwin and evidence that discredits Darwin. I enjoy hearing it all. Shouldn't all the evidence be entered and weighed to approach some truth ?

There is no evidence that discredits Darwin.

Either you didn't read, or failed to understand the OP.

Stick to something you know about.

 

[dilloduck]

"...the Bible Bangers see Darwin as a threat to their weltanschaung...."

Actually, what you state is the exact opposite of reality.

Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects.


In truth, the fate of Marxism is the reason Leftists require Darwin to be accepted at true.


1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



2. Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries





It appears that you don't have the education, in either science or in history, required to understand either.




3. BTW....The OP was based on science, not religion in any way. But since you Darwin drones cannot deal with the science, the attempt is always to bring in religion.

....your antipathy toward religion stems from the same source as your love of Darwin.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses."
The Schwarz Report | Essays



Too bad you never had the strength to question the propaganda you've been 'taught.'

Neither science nor Darwin are invalidated just because politicians and philosophers use it to justify their political and philosophical positions.

Glad that you've retreated from the attempt to bring in religion.


And, here, again, is the reason that Darwin is " invalidated."

"Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects."




The support of Marxists, and it's necessity for Marxism, is the reason for Darwin's continued, or enforced, elevation.

Real scientists don't support it....but many know that they will lose benefactions if they admit same.
It's good for a paycheck.

There know what side of evolution the money is on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither science nor Darwin are invalidated just because politicians and philosophers use it to justify their political and philosophical positions.

Glad that you've retreated from the attempt to bring in religion.


And, here, again, is the reason that Darwin is " invalidated."

"Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects."




The support of Marxists, and it's necessity for Marxism, is the reason for Darwin's continued, or enforced, elevation.

Real scientists don't support it....but many know that they will lose benefactions if they admit same.
It's good for a paycheck.

There know what side of evolution the money is on.

And how it would cost them if they say otherwise....as follows:

The following details the fate of any scientist who dares to buck the orthodoxy.
a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.



f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."


g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com





Did you notice how the same arguments used against Dr. Sternberg 'miraculously' appeared in this thread?

 

[dilloduck]

Glad that you've retreated from the attempt to bring in religion.


And, here, again, is the reason that Darwin is " invalidated."

"Darwin was clearly incorrect, as no proof of his thesis has turned up in a century and a half.

I have shown that in the case of the fossil record, and today, the failure of attempts to prove Darwin via differential DNA effects."




The support of Marxists, and it's necessity for Marxism, is the reason for Darwin's continued, or enforced, elevation.

Real scientists don't support it....but many know that they will lose benefactions if they admit same.
It's good for a paycheck.

There know what side of evolution the money is on.

And how it would cost them if they say otherwise....as follows:

The following details the fate of any scientist who dares to buck the orthodoxy.
a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.



f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."


g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com





Did you notice how the same arguments used against Dr. Sternberg 'miraculously' appeared in this thread?

Classic coinky-dink