Darwin: Molecules and Mythology

[hortysir]

Nice deflection.

The fact remains that valence electrons destroy your random chance bullshit.

Try again.

It is hardly a 'deflection'......it is adding to your limited store of knowledge....

After all...who brought up Crick?

You did.

I'm simply alerting you to the thinking of your icon.

The more you continue to deflect, the more you expose the fact that you can't rebut the unassailable fact that atoms and molecules do not combine by random chance, but form specific arrangements based on their valence electrons.

Thank you.

So how would anything "evolve" is that combination is so hard-wired?

 

[edthecynic]

OK....I promised a tutorial.....comin' right up:



9. How exactly, could we use the molecular structure of DNA to compare organisms for evolutionary relationships?

Well, the idea is to compare the sequences of the nucleotide subunits: tiny differences in sequence mean closer relationship, larger differences, less close connections.
Makes sense?

a. And...the beauty of this kind of study is that it uses quantitative measurement. Think how much easier this is than looking at two skulls and judging degrees of similarity.

It's a homerun.......right?






10. Not quite:
first of all, it is not easy to decide how to line up two different molecules of such immense length....I mean, at what point along the DNA do we consider similarities?


Secondly, it is not true that an alteration of one subunit in one place has a similar effect as an alteration in another.

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!


Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."




Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species, doesn't do that at all.

Remember: the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

Hardly.


Who's zoomin' who?

Again your complete stupidity is showing!

They are talking about comparing the sequence of the base PAIRS.
Nucleotides are read in groups of 3 by messenger RNA, not DNA. The basic structure of the DNA molecule does not change, what changes is how the base PAIRS are ordered. That order is what contains the info for the cell and it is the order of the base PAIRS that can mutate, not the base PAIRS themselves or the basic structure of the DNA molecule itself.

Get it yet?

From RNA to Protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

An mRNA Sequence Is Decoded in Sets of Three Nucleotides

Once an mRNA has been produced, by transcription and processing the information present in its nucleotide sequence is used to synthesize a protein. Transcription is simple to understand as a means of information transfer: since DNA and RNA are chemically and structurally similar, the DNA can act as a direct template for the synthesis of RNA by complementary base-pairing. As the term transcription signifies, it is as if a message written out by hand is being converted, say, into a typewritten text. The language itself and the form of the message do not change, and the symbols used are closely related.
In contrast, the conversion of the information in RNA into protein represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols. Moreover, since there are only four different nucleotides in mRNA and twenty different types of amino acids in a protein, this translation cannot be accounted for by a direct one-to-one correspondence between a nucleotide in RNA and an amino acid in protein. The nucleotide sequence of a gene, through the medium of mRNA, is translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein by rules that are known as the genetic code. This code was deciphered in the early 1960s.
The sequence of nucleotides in the mRNA molecule is read consecutively in groups of three. RNA is a linear polymer of four different nucleotides, so there are 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides: the triplets AAA, AUA, AUG, and so on. However, only 20 different amino acids are commonly found in proteins. Either some nucleotide triplets are never used, or the code is redundant and some amino acids are specified by more than one triplet. The second possibility is, in fact, the correct one, as shown by the completely deciphered genetic code in Figure 6-50. Each group of three consecutive nucleotides in RNA is called a codon, and each codon specifies either one amino acid or a stop to the translation process.

 

[hortysir]

OK....I promised a tutorial.....comin' right up:



9. How exactly, could we use the molecular structure of DNA to compare organisms for evolutionary relationships?

Well, the idea is to compare the sequences of the nucleotide subunits: tiny differences in sequence mean closer relationship, larger differences, less close connections.
Makes sense?

a. And...the beauty of this kind of study is that it uses quantitative measurement. Think how much easier this is than looking at two skulls and judging degrees of similarity.

It's a homerun.......right?






10. Not quite:
first of all, it is not easy to decide how to line up two different molecules of such immense length....I mean, at what point along the DNA do we consider similarities?


Secondly, it is not true that an alteration of one subunit in one place has a similar effect as an alteration in another.

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!


Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."




Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species, doesn't do that at all.

Remember: the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

Hardly.


Who's zoomin' who?

Again your complete stupidity is showing!

They are talking about comparing the sequence of the base PAIRS.
Nucleotides are read in groups of 3 by messenger RNA, not DNA. The basic structure of the DNA molecule does not change, what changes is how the base PAIRS are ordered. That order is what contains the info for the cell and it is the order of the base PAIRS that can mutate, not the base PAIRS themselves or the basic structure of the DNA molecule itself.

Get it yet?

From RNA to Protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

An mRNA Sequence Is Decoded in Sets of Three Nucleotides

Once an mRNA has been produced, by transcription and processing the information present in its nucleotide sequence is used to synthesize a protein. Transcription is simple to understand as a means of information transfer: since DNA and RNA are chemically and structurally similar, the DNA can act as a direct template for the synthesis of RNA by complementary base-pairing. As the term transcription signifies, it is as if a message written out by hand is being converted, say, into a typewritten text. The language itself and the form of the message do not change, and the symbols used are closely related.
In contrast, the conversion of the information in RNA into protein represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols. Moreover, since there are only four different nucleotides in mRNA and twenty different types of amino acids in a protein, this translation cannot be accounted for by a direct one-to-one correspondence between a nucleotide in RNA and an amino acid in protein. The nucleotide sequence of a gene, through the medium of mRNA, is translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein by rules that are known as the genetic code. This code was deciphered in the early 1960s.
The sequence of nucleotides in the mRNA molecule is read consecutively in groups of three. RNA is a linear polymer of four different nucleotides, so there are 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides: the triplets AAA, AUA, AUG, and so on. However, only 20 different amino acids are commonly found in proteins. Either some nucleotide triplets are never used, or the code is redundant and some amino acids are specified by more than one triplet. The second possibility is, in fact, the correct one, as shown by the completely deciphered genetic code in Figure 6-50. Each group of three consecutive nucleotides in RNA is called a codon, and each codon specifies either one amino acid or a stop to the translation process.

I've never claimed to be an expert, but isn't that exactly what your previous point seemed to be advocating, when you said:

First of all, DNA is made up of only 4 molecules. Not as complex as you pretend.

Of course, if you knew anything about atoms and molecules you would know they do not combine by random chance but by the number of electrons in their outer shell, called "Valence" electrons. That means they can only combine in certain ways, not some made up unlimited number of ways.

 

[Plasmaball]

yeah...not really concerned since you are not a scientist and have zero peer reviewed papers on the subject. That and most actual scientists wouldnt give you the time of day.

 

[indiajo]

[

Hallucinate much?


Where did you see any reference to religion, dope?


Science isn't your strong suit....is it.

Do you have a strong suit?

Supergirl did not talk about scíence. She was talking about chimpynzees not evolving into humans the past few years, although we provide them with TV and other stuff in zoos.
Any further comment necessary?

 

[Hollie]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Here is a depiction of just how clueless you are.

See, when you cut and paste nonsense from Harun Yahya (as you have done in eight other nonsense threads), you inevitably come across as a total loon.

 

[Hollie]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.








2. There would be no reason to say that....if the fossil record had done as Darwin said it would:

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

(For those unfamiliar with Niles, he was the co-author with Stephen Gould, of the neo-Darwinist theory, 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'


Then, I'll let you mull over why Darwin is pushed so strongly, on the uninitiated.

Now. Now my little fundie loon. I’ve written in every one of your last threads that you need to PM me first with your lies and fraudulent “quotes” so I can advise you of you lies and frauds.

Here again (as with every other thread of lies and fraud you have opened), you have a need and desire to lie, mis-inform and hurl your phony “quotes” in pursuit of your extremist religious beliefs.

You make yourself out to be the biggest moron with these phony “quotes” you steal from Harun Yahya. So why do it?

You have been shown to be a fraud and a liar in the eight other threads you have opened and eventually slithered away from when you lies were exposed.
Below is a link that contains additional dialogue that you and Harun Yahya have snipped out in your fraudulent attempt to further your anti-science agenda and extremist agenda.

As per the following link, I've highlighted the parts from you phony "quote" which have been fraudulently edited, parsed and deleted.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

Quote #37

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.

Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)

In the passages quoted, Eldredge and Tattersall are discussing the merits of gradualism, something the quote miner has left out, as we can see:

The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories.

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved.

Note the claim that the fossil record supports evolution.

So yeah, once again, and as per the last eight threads you have opened, you are shown to be a:


a) fraud,

b) liar,

c) phony, and,

d) brain dead clone of Harun Yahya.

 

[thanatos144]

Love it when liberal go all purple when someone dares tell the truth that Darwin was full of shit.

 

[Hollie]

Love it when liberal go all purple when someone dares tell the truth that Darwin was full of shit.

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Love it when liberal go all purple when someone dares tell the truth that Darwin was full of shit.

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

 

[Hollie]

Love it when liberal go all purple when someone dares tell the truth that Darwin was full of shit.

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

You mean other than your continued tactics of lies and fraud?

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK....I promised a tutorial.....comin' right up:



9. How exactly, could we use the molecular structure of DNA to compare organisms for evolutionary relationships?

Well, the idea is to compare the sequences of the nucleotide subunits: tiny differences in sequence mean closer relationship, larger differences, less close connections.
Makes sense?

a. And...the beauty of this kind of study is that it uses quantitative measurement. Think how much easier this is than looking at two skulls and judging degrees of similarity.

It's a homerun.......right?






10. Not quite:
first of all, it is not easy to decide how to line up two different molecules of such immense length....I mean, at what point along the DNA do we consider similarities?


Secondly, it is not true that an alteration of one subunit in one place has a similar effect as an alteration in another.

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!


Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."




Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species, doesn't do that at all.

Remember: the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

Hardly.


Who's zoomin' who?

"Again your complete stupidity is showing!"


Really?

Can we examine that?





Well....I am truly gratified to see that my posts have forced you to attempt to lean the basics of genetics!
See....it's never too late to learn.
Bravo!


Let's review: the essence of this thread is that Darwin's theory is flawed in numerous ways, and this thread points out two glaring flaws!



1.From the start, fossil evidence was to be the proof of the theory. If that was successful, the shift to 'molecular evidence' would not have been necessary.

As the old saying goes..." The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."'

So....if the fossil attempt doesn't pan out.....what of the other '12 chimes," attempts to prove Darwin correct?




2. Darwin fans are clutching at straws....and turning to DNA for proof is one of those straws.

First, note that my posts are linked and documented, and sourced.

Secondly, a carful appraisal of the material that you have provided will indicate that none of it refutes anything I've said.





3. Now, what have I said?

a. Attempts at providing DNA support is due to the failure of fossil proof.

b. DNA is an immense molecule and it's specific and exact sequence is essential.

c. In order for Darwin's idea that random changes in the order of nucleotides produces viable organisms, well....experiments have shown that this is almost never true.

This is because organisms that survive are suited for their environment...and any alteration makes them less suited.


d. Now...is it possible for random changes in the DNA to have accomplished the diversity of life we see today?
According to mathematicians.....no. Impossible






4. Wait....given millions of years.....you know....randomness....maybe?

No.

a. The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.


Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.

Here is the source of the problem:
'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

b. Ratiometric analysis changed that:

"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

c. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.


d. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!





So....I ask again: why is Darwin pushed so hard in this society, when there is scant evidence for, and lots of evidence against???

Why?


Do you have an answer?


I do.




Guess whose birthday today is.....it's part of the answer to the above query.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

You mean other than your continued tactics of lies and fraud?

Time after time you whine about religion....not part of the thread, and lies, not in evidence....


...yet never can point to any lies or even inaccuracies.


As such, you inadvertently prove everything I post is true.


Continue.

 

[Old Rocks]

PC is still making strawman arguements. But what can one expect of a scientific illiterate?

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is still making strawman arguements. But what can one expect of a scientific illiterate?

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

See...now I have to teach you English as well as science!


1. Pay attention: straw man argument- a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.


I did no such thing....but, being wrong certainly isn't a new experience for you, is it.



Everything I've posted is accurate and correct.....scientifically.




2. "...a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap....

Yet I just proved that this is not possible.





3. "...simple proteins/proteinoids simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells.

You have no idea how stupid this contention is.....but then, you have no idea about so very many things.

Your quote is like posting that the pumpkin in Cinderella developed into a coach.

BTW....can you show any case, evidence, experiment where " simple proteins/proteinoids developed slowly into cells"?

Never happened....but you post it as proof of your mythology.




Careful....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!

 

[Hollie]

Love it when liberal go all purple when someone dares tell the truth that Darwin was full of shit.

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

I did.







Why didn't you address your lies and fraud?

 

[Hollie]

2. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published the following:
"The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some case, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea.....[Recent genetic comparisons] have confirmed this relationship... "
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Get that: ".... molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
In other words....'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!"

You can't really be that stupid.....




Oh. Yes you can.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

I did.







Why didn't you address your lies and fraud?

Because there aren't any.

I never lie.

You do.




And....if you hadn't failed out of school you'd recognize the validity of the science education that I provide.

 

[Hollie]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

That is not at all what Origin of Species proposed.

You haven't the slightest clue as the science you're hoping to vilify.



You're actually just another cut and paster / Harun Yahya groupie who doesn't understand the first thing about science.




Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about being clueless when you have been shown to be clueless?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

That is not at all what Origin of Species proposed.

You haven't the slightest clue as the science you're hoping to vilify.



You're actually just another cut and paster / Harun Yahya groupie who doesn't understand the first thing about science.




Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about being clueless when you have been shown to be clueless?

"That is not at all what Origin of Species proposed."


You ended any claim to knowledge right there.