Darwin: Fossils or Fruit Flies?

[alan1]

I still like my fossils.
One of my favorites is the complete skull of a cave bear. One of the largest known to exist. Regardless of how it came to be it is a beautiful item.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. More of the same:

Recent studies in which DNA was altered showed an amazing regression to original form.

In a detailed study of the human cell reprogramming process, a group including CiRA researcher Tsuyoshi Tanabe, lecturer Kazutoshi Takahashi, and Professor Shinya Yamanaka has demonstrated that a major obstacle to the creation of iPS cells [ induced pluripotent stem cell.] lies in the maturation stage of the reprogramming process.


The results showed that somatic cell reprogramming is initiated in a large proportion (12-24%) of cells into which reprogramming factors are introduced. However, the success rate of complete reprogramming to ultimately create iPS cells is only around 0.2%, which led the researchers to hypothesize that it was not the initiation of reprogramming, but a later-stage process, that was the obstacle.
"Fig. 1
Photograph showing cells in which reprogramming has been initiated but which are beginning to revert to their state prior to the initiation of reprogramming.
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University




10. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor



It seems to be evidence of the fixity of species, and evidence against Darwin's assumptions.



Let's do this again: Darwin says his random mutations change one species into another.....

...no one has seen, or shown this....

...and evidence is that changes rebound into original forms.



Hmmmmmm.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

I still like my fossils.
One of my favorites is the complete skull of a cave bear. One of the largest known to exist. Regardless of how it came to be it is a beautiful item.

I certainly agree that there is amazing beauty in nature.

 

[Steven_R]

Richard Sternberg got his dick slapped because he used his position as editor to slip in Meyer's paper and completely bypass the peer-review process to do so. Don't make it sound like he's being persecuted for anything but that. He used his position as editor to insert a paper and the journal rightly fired him from his editorial position and that was the only punishment inflicted. Any damage to his professional reputation was entirely self-inflicted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Richard Sternberg got his dick slapped because he used his position as editor to slip in Meyer's paper and completely bypass the peer-review process to do so. Don't make it sound like he's being persecuted for anything but that. He used his position as editor to insert a paper and the journal rightly fired him from his editorial position and that was the only punishment inflicted. Any damage to his professional reputation was entirely self-inflicted.

Liar.



"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

An e-mail stated, falsely, that Sternberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.

A former professor of Sternberg's says the researcher has an intellectual penchant for going against the system. Sternberg does not deny it.

"I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_3.html



Truth is hardly at the top for the Darwin groupies like you.

 

[Steven_R]

Uh huh.

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg
Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom : NPR

From the NPR article:

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."

 

[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.

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.

This is why I don't want to discuss these things with you. Science does not PROVE anything. Show me one thing science has proved to be absolutely true. Just one.

You haven't disproven anything about the any of the Theories of evolution. Yes, there are more than one theories.

I would gladly discuss the theories with you but you have not accepted any of the evidence which supports those theories. I have, and so have many others on this forum, provided that evidence which clearly and overwhelmingly supports those theories and yet you will not accept any of evidence as fact or that it supports those theories.

So what's the point of discussing it with you?

 

[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.

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 ?

Yes, and it has been for 150 years and still the theories of evolution still provide the best explanation for speciation so far. Darwin came up with the first theories and since then more theories which are more robust have evolved from Darwin's ideas. Darwin has no bearing in the debate about the efficacy and fitness of the theories of evolution.

 

[Steven_R]

Yes, and it has been for 150 years and still the theories of evolution still provide the best explanation for speciation so far. Darwin came up with the first theories and since then more theories which are more robust have evolved from Darwin's ideas. Darwin has no bearing in the debate about the efficacy and fitness of the theories of evolution.

Unless one wants to muddy the waters and convince people with no scientific background that evolution is wrong. For the common man in the street, Darwin is Evolution. If Darwin wasn't 100% right, then Evolution must be wrong.

When the anti-science crowd starts getting papers in Nature and Science and the top tier biology and evolutionary science journals, I'll start paying them mind.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thanks so much for the family photos.

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

As does your own.

 

[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.

This is why I don't want to discuss these things with you. Science does not PROVE anything. Show me one thing science has proved to be absolutely true. Just one.

You haven't disproven anything about the any of the Theories of evolution. Yes, there are more than one theories.

I would gladly discuss the theories with you but you have not accepted any of the evidence which supports those theories. I have, and so have many others on this forum, provided that evidence which clearly and overwhelmingly supports those theories and yet you will not accept any of evidence as fact or that it supports those theories.

So what's the point of discussing it with you?

Still no evidence provided.

 

[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 ?

Yes, and it has been for 150 years and still the theories of evolution still provide the best explanation for speciation so far. Darwin came up with the first theories and since then more theories which are more robust have evolved from Darwin's ideas. Darwin has no bearing in the debate about the efficacy and fitness of the theories of evolution.

"... still provide the best explanation for speciation so far."


You have no understanding of the difference between evidence and a guess.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, and it has been for 150 years and still the theories of evolution still provide the best explanation for speciation so far. Darwin came up with the first theories and since then more theories which are more robust have evolved from Darwin's ideas. Darwin has no bearing in the debate about the efficacy and fitness of the theories of evolution.

Unless one wants to muddy the waters and convince people with no scientific background that evolution is wrong. For the common man in the street, Darwin is Evolution. If Darwin wasn't 100% right, then Evolution must be wrong.

When the anti-science crowd starts getting papers in Nature and Science and the top tier biology and evolutionary science journals, I'll start paying them mind.

You have no idea what my background is....

...but let's say it's somewhere between you and expert.




"When the anti-science crowd starts getting papers in Nature and Science and the top tier biology and evolutionary science journals, I'll start paying them mind.[/QUOTE]"

This was the first thing in the OP:

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



Kinda makes you look like a dope, doesn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks so much for the family photos.

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

As does your own.

Wait....did you actually post "so are you"????



A regular junior high school whiz kid, huh?



And, in kind: "The eyes are open, the mouth moves, but Mr Brain has long since departed, hasn't he..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't resist kicking you dopes when you're down.....so:


11. Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.


But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:

a. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.


b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis



So....not only do changes tend to rebound back to the original conditions...but if they aren't tiny alterations....they kill the organism.




"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski



Doesn't bode well for Darwin's theory.




This is going so well.....next time I may post one that rips you guys up based on organic chemistry......

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

This is why I don't want to discuss these things with you. Science does not PROVE anything. Show me one thing science has proved to be absolutely true. Just one.

You haven't disproven anything about the any of the Theories of evolution. Yes, there are more than one theories.

I would gladly discuss the theories with you but you have not accepted any of the evidence which supports those theories. I have, and so have many others on this forum, provided that evidence which clearly and overwhelmingly supports those theories and yet you will not accept any of evidence as fact or that it supports those theories.

So what's the point of discussing it with you?

Still no evidence provided.

Of course not. You would have dismissed it out of hand anyway. I've been down this road with you before and so have many others. Hence my posts in this thread already.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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 ?

Yes, and it has been for 150 years and still the theories of evolution still provide the best explanation for speciation so far. Darwin came up with the first theories and since then more theories which are more robust have evolved from Darwin's ideas. Darwin has no bearing in the debate about the efficacy and fitness of the theories of evolution.

"... still provide the best explanation for speciation so far."


You have no understanding of the difference between evidence and a guess.

But you do?

Do you know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a guess?

The theory is a framework of explanations based on the evidence which explains the observed phenomena and makes accurate predictions. It must do both. Or as you'd call it: a guess - if theories like Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc. are guesses.

The evidence are observations of the phenomena which supports the theory in its ability to explain the phenomena or to make predictions regarding the phenomena, or detracts from the theory in either way. So far, in 150 years,no scientist has been able to, despite many attempting, to debunk any of the current theories.

Do you have a better "guess" that explains speciation which includes geologic, genetic, morphological, and physical evidence and which also makes predictions which bear out as the theories of evolution have? No?

Then my statement stands: the current theories of evolution are the best explanations for speciation so far.

Stop cherry picking which arguments to which you'll respond and address each point and that might help your arguments' credibility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is why I don't want to discuss these things with you. Science does not PROVE anything. Show me one thing science has proved to be absolutely true. Just one.

You haven't disproven anything about the any of the Theories of evolution. Yes, there are more than one theories.

I would gladly discuss the theories with you but you have not accepted any of the evidence which supports those theories. I have, and so have many others on this forum, provided that evidence which clearly and overwhelmingly supports those theories and yet you will not accept any of evidence as fact or that it supports those theories.

So what's the point of discussing it with you?

Still no evidence provided.

Of course not. You would have dismissed it out of hand anyway. I've been down this road with you before and so have many others. Hence my posts in this thread already.

"You would have...."

While we don't now about hypotheticals, we do know that you haven't tried to respond to the OP or any of the other posts I've provided.....all based on real science.

" ...so have many others."

That's a lie.





And, since the discussion has progressed to mind-reading......I strongly recommend that you not go to a mind-reader,

....go to a palmist. We know you have a palm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, and it has been for 150 years and still the theories of evolution still provide the best explanation for speciation so far. Darwin came up with the first theories and since then more theories which are more robust have evolved from Darwin's ideas. Darwin has no bearing in the debate about the efficacy and fitness of the theories of evolution.

"... still provide the best explanation for speciation so far."


You have no understanding of the difference between evidence and a guess.

But you do?

Do you know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a guess?

The theory is a framework of explanations based on the evidence which explains the observed phenomena and makes accurate predictions. It must do both. Or as you'd call it: a guess - if theories like Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc. are guesses.

The evidence are observations of the phenomena which supports the theory in its ability to explain the phenomena or to make predictions regarding the phenomena, or detracts from the theory in either way. So far, in 150 years,no scientist has been able to, despite many attempting, to debunk any of the current theories.

Do you have a better "guess" that explains speciation which includes geologic, genetic, morphological, and physical evidence and which also makes predictions which bear out as the theories of evolution have? No?

Then my statement stands: the current theories of evolution are the best explanations for speciation so far.

Stop cherry picking which arguments to which you'll respond and address each point and that might help your arguments' credibility.

Is this your way of admitting that there is zero proof of Darwin's hypothesis?


Wise retreat.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Sigh...