Darwin To The Rescue

[PoliticalChic]

It has never......NEVER.....happened!!

OK, if you say so... all creatures, great and small, were created at the same time.

What is wrong with you?

Why so fearful to truth?




According to Darwin, all living things began with one single cell, and random changes have accumulated to make more and more complex organisms.


There is proof....PROOF.....of the very opposite occurring.

Folks involved in agriculture and the raising of animals for one reason or another have known for eons how to select those with characteristics that they wish, for color or size or any characteristic that happens to differ from the general population.

But there was never…NEVER….a case where the changes followed a path that led to a new species.

Growers knew that there was a limit these tiny alterations, and at some point if selection continued, it always resulted in death.

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God


"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."
David Berlinski




Marxism requires atheism, and Darwin's theory is the best argument against religion.

That is why the Progressive education industry pushes his theory.




Wise up.

Hey, I'm agreeing with you. There is only one explanation for life in the Universe.

A sarcastic post suggesting that live on earth is due to 'magic' is certainly not agreeing with me.



a. what you should do is admit you never realized that there is no proof of Darwin's theory, and that there is actually proof of the very opposite.
You've been tricked.


b. and you should read physicist Alan P. Lightman's article here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720


In part:

"…the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.

For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”

 

[fncceo]

I made a poodle...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I made a poodle...

Some folks, those with more character, don't like being wrong or being tricked....

....you're not one of those.

 

[fncceo]

I made a poodle...

Some folks, those with more character, don't like being wrong or being tricked....

....you're not one of those.

I get that you have a hard time understanding a process as complicated as Evolution. But, to replace it with magic because you can't wrap your head around it, that just seems a bit primitive.

There are certainly less established scientific principles you could take your hand at trying to denounce. Why not try one of those?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I made a poodle...

Some folks, those with more character, don't like being wrong or being tricked....

....you're not one of those.

I get that you have a hard time understanding a process as complicated as Evolution. But, to replace it with magic because you can't wrap your head around it, that just seems a bit primitive.

There are certainly less established scientific principles you could take your hand at trying to denounce. Why not try one of those?

Dolts like you always claim the opposite of the truth.

I am far more educated than you are, as proven by the multitude of carefully documented posts in this thread.


a. not only have I shown that there has never been any proof of Darwin's thesis, but fossil evidence proves the very opposite: advanced organisms have spontaneously come into existence.

b. I will go on in this thread to teach the genetics that, clearly, you are clueless about. Stay tuned.




Facts:
The ‘evidence’ is largely in opposition to Darwin’s theory.

“...representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up.”
Giving Up Darwin



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

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




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

How about the sudden.....SUDDEN....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??



In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off


Sooo.....what does it mean when the evidence actually disproves Darwin's theory?????


And why is the theory taught as though it was proven true?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Real science works against belief in Darwin's fable.



12. Our Liberal/Progressive pals, government school ‘educated,’ will have trouble with this post, as it involves molecular biology….waaaaayyyy over their heads.
Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide, a simple mutation, 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.....even by government school grads



b. This sentence represents a gene....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.
Basic Genetics




So....a mutation would leave out, or add, or change, 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!
Drop the first letter from each triplet, and watch what it becomes: no longer "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

….to this:

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

This is the reason that mutated organisms die: their DNA can see that Darwin's premise, simple alterations of genes would produce a new species, would, instead, be fatal.




For centuries breeders have known that tiny changes in an organism, a gene, may be survivable.
But never enough of 'em accumulate to produce speciation.

And that remains true throughout millions of experiments.


The explanation for evolution must remain elsewhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I made a poodle...

Some folks, those with more character, don't like being wrong or being tricked....

....you're not one of those.

I get that you have a hard time understanding a process as complicated as Evolution. But, to replace it with magic because you can't wrap your head around it, that just seems a bit primitive.

There are certainly less established scientific principles you could take your hand at trying to denounce. Why not try one of those?

"I get that you have a hard time understanding a process as complicated as Evolution"

I authored post #26 just to educate someone with your.....lacunae.


Hope you appreciate it.

And....I bet it proves which of us actually 'has a hard time understanding Evolution.'




Stop being afraid of learning.

 

[Ringtone]

You get that it takes more than a few weeks, right?

It's always most hilarious when the point flies right over the smart ass' head.

Play close attention and think past your next meal this time.

You do understand that the notion of an evolutionarily branching, transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed at all, not now, not ever! It's purely a hypothetical extrapolation from the observed, cyclically limited range of speciation of adaptive radiation. The extrapolation is ultimately predicated on nothing more substantial than the metaphysical presupposition of the evolutionist's religion, namely, naturalism. So why do you believe it's true?

 

[Ringtone]

Thousand of years and God has yet to become present to his creation and establish his existence making him another theory of human evolution.

I know. Right? Because the notion of an infinite regress of causality or the notion of existence arising from nonexistence is so obviously true and rational..

 

[Ringtone]

Yep! Magic certainly summarizes the essence of abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You get that it takes more than a few weeks, right?

It's always most hilarious when the point flies right over the smart ass' head.

Play close attention and think past your next meal this time.

You do understand that the notion of an evolutionarily branching, transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed at all, not now, not ever! It's purely a hypothetical extrapolation from the observed, cyclically limited range of speciation of adaptive radiation. The extrapolation is ultimately predicated on nothing more substantial than the metaphysical presupposition of the evolutionist's religion, namely, naturalism.

The real question is why they are so fearful of admitting that Darwin's theory is insupportable....

I believe that it is because of the ridicule religious folks have to face in this secular society, and if they admit how flimsy Darwinian thought is, they might have to admit the possibility of the other explanation....the unmentionable one.


"The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. "
Coulter

 

[Ringtone]

It has never......NEVER.....happened!!

OK, if you say so... all creatures, great and small, were created at the same time.

No one here made any such claim, let alone the Bible. Are you hearing things or just exposing your ignorance and gullibility again?

 

[Ringtone]

I get that you have a hard time understanding a process as complicated as Evolution. But, to replace it with magic because you can't wrap your head around it, that just seems a bit primitive.

There are certainly less established scientific principles you could take your hand at trying to denounce. Why not try one of those?

Ahhhhhhh, shut up. There's nothing complicated about the theory of evolution, and I seriously doubt you grasp the science. You're just a go-along, a conformist, a brainwash.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has never......NEVER.....happened!!

OK, if you say so... all creatures, great and small, were created at the same time.

No one here made any such claim, let alone the Bible. Are you hearing things or just exposing your ignorance and gullibility again?

It is more than interesting that the events that science accepts as the correct order of the creation of the earth, and life, mirror what is in Genesis.


1. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


2. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I get that you have a hard time understanding a process as complicated as Evolution. But, to replace it with magic because you can't wrap your head around it, that just seems a bit primitive.

There are certainly less established scientific principles you could take your hand at trying to denounce. Why not try one of those?

Ahhhhhhh, shut up, you braying jackass. There's nothing complicated about the theory of evolution, and I seriously doubt you grasp the science. You're just a go-along, a conformist, a brainwash.

Have you read this one, by "Andrew Parker (born 1967) (Ph.D. Macquarie University) is a zoologist who has worked on Biomimetics. He worked at the Natural History Museum in London, and from 1990 to 1999 he was a Royal Society University Research Fellow and is a Research Associate of the Australian Museum and University of Sydney and from 1999 until 2005 he worked at the University of Oxford. As of 2018 Parker is a Visiting Research Fellow at Green Templeton College where he is head of a Research Team into photonic structures and eyes."
Andrew Parker (zoologist) - Wikipedia

 

[Ringtone]

I haven't. Have you read

 

[PoliticalChic]

I haven't. Have you read

Yup....

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. How do we get a brand-new species????

“To help create a brand-new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal.

They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce.

This is common sense. Severely deformed creatures don’t ever seem fated to lead the way to glorious new forms of life. Instead, they die young.” Giving Up Darwin





Consider this is the light of Darwin's precepts.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science" most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies. This impression is seriously misleading. Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17




In the nearly two centuries since his thesis, no proof of Darwinian Evolution has ever been produced.

Why is that?

And what would your professors have answered if you had asked why?

And why did you never ask?

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. "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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


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




Yet many accept that the accumulation of tiny changes have produced the myriad life forms that exist today.

On the contrary.....the fossil record provides examples of fully formed organisms that had no predecessors.

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

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

How is this possible? Certainly not by Darwin's ideas.




15. "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.



Any other possible explanations for the diversity of life on our planet……or even of life, per se?

Why so afraid to mention it???

 

[PoliticalChic]

16. The math is anti-Darwin.


“…evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.



The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.




Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal. The German geneticists Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for the “Heidelberg screen,” an exhaustive investigation of every observable or inducible mutation of Drosophila melanogaster…

Not one, he continued, is “promising as raw materials for macroevolution”—because mutations in them all killed off the fly long before it could mate.
Giving Up Darwin



Let's review:

a. Molecular biology, a knowledge of DNA, inveighs against Darwin's ideas

b. Mathematics makes Darwin's view improbable

c. 180 years of experiments have come up with zero successful experiments at producing a new species.

d. Breeders have known for centuries that random changes, more often than not, rebound to the original form.

e. Marxism's struggle with religion demands that Darwinian theory be treated as fact. Leftist control of the schools advances their goal.