Darwin To The Rescue

[PoliticalChic]

17.To correctly understand why Darwinism is given the appreciation it truly does not deserve, consider this admission:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


As per the OP, Darwin is most valuable as an asset to Karl Marx.
You've been taught Darwin's theory because of neo-Marxist influence in the schools.

These academicians bring the bias of their politics and lay it at the feet of Charles Darwin. The ‘scientists’ are atheistic Marxists, and Darwin serves their political views.


Stephen Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!


In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
And the goal of this fake science, Darwinism, is to disassociate Americans from religion.


And it has been, largely, successful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

18. If Darwin’s theory can be proven, why would the education industry lie to the public about it?
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution," their efforts in the laboratory remain unsuccessful.



And they cover failure at proving Darwin with lies.

"There are no weaknesses in [Darwin's] theory of evolution."

This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....


a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.



Disheartening what lengths their acolytes will go to to support their religion, Marxism.

 

[alang1216]

18. If Darwin’s theory can be proven, why would the education industry lie to the public about it?
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution," their efforts in the laboratory remain unsuccessful.



And they cover failure at proving Darwin with lies.

"There are no weaknesses in [Darwin's] theory of evolution."

This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....


a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.



Disheartening what lengths their acolytes will go to to support their religion, Marxism.

I thought I'd never say it but you're correct. This thread does belong in the Politics section since is it not science it is your ideological wish. It is established science that we came from a common ancestor. Sorry but every branch of science and math support it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

18. If Darwin’s theory can be proven, why would the education industry lie to the public about it?
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution," their efforts in the laboratory remain unsuccessful.



And they cover failure at proving Darwin with lies.

"There are no weaknesses in [Darwin's] theory of evolution."

This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....


a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.



Disheartening what lengths their acolytes will go to to support their religion, Marxism.

I thought I'd never say it but you're correct. This thread does belong in the Politics section since is it not science it is your ideological wish. It is established science that we came from a common ancestor. Sorry but every branch of science and math support it.

"It is established science that we came from a common ancestor."


Now....how could that be possible....provide the scientific journal and/or paper that provides such proof, or simply change your avi to 'Imbecile.'


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.

 

[alang1216]

"It is established science that we came from a common ancestor."


Now....how could that be possible....provide the scientific journal and/or paper that provides such proof, or simply change your avi to 'Imbecile.'


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.

Proofs are only in math. Science depends on evidence.

a. Molecular biology, a knowledge of DNA, inveighs against Darwin's ideas
No it doesn't, in fact:
The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

b. Mathematics makes Darwin's view improbable
If you understood math and evolution you'd know is it untrue. ToE is certainly it is less improbable than creationism.

c. 180 years of experiments have come up with zero successful experiments at producing a new species.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

d. Breeders have known for centuries that random changes, more often than not, rebound to the original form.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

e. Marxism's struggle with religion demands that Darwinian theory be treated as fact. Leftist control of the schools advances their goal.
The Rights hatred of Marxism and love of religion demands that Darwinian theory be discredited. The Right wants control of the schools to advances their ideological goals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It is established science that we came from a common ancestor."


Now....how could that be possible....provide the scientific journal and/or paper that provides such proof, or simply change your avi to 'Imbecile.'


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.

Proofs are only in math. Science depends on evidence.

a. Molecular biology, a knowledge of DNA, inveighs against Darwin's ideas
No it doesn't, in fact:
The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

b. Mathematics makes Darwin's view improbable
If you understood math and evolution you'd know is it untrue. ToE is certainly it is less improbable than creationism.

c. 180 years of experiments have come up with zero successful experiments at producing a new species.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

d. Breeders have known for centuries that random changes, more often than not, rebound to the original form.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

e. Marxism's struggle with religion demands that Darwinian theory be treated as fact. Leftist control of the schools advances their goal.
The Rights hatred of Marxism and love of religion demands that Darwinian theory be discredited. The Right wants control of the schools to advances their ideological goals.

Judging by the alacrity that brought you here to defend Marxism.....Darwin......I do know more about evolution than you.




When will you either provide the books that informed your geopolitical insight, or admit you've never read any?

 

[alang1216]

"It is established science that we came from a common ancestor."


Now....how could that be possible....provide the scientific journal and/or paper that provides such proof, or simply change your avi to 'Imbecile.'


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.

Proofs are only in math. Science depends on evidence.

a. Molecular biology, a knowledge of DNA, inveighs against Darwin's ideas
No it doesn't, in fact:
The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

b. Mathematics makes Darwin's view improbable
If you understood math and evolution you'd know is it untrue. ToE is certainly it is less improbable than creationism.

c. 180 years of experiments have come up with zero successful experiments at producing a new species.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

d. Breeders have known for centuries that random changes, more often than not, rebound to the original form.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

e. Marxism's struggle with religion demands that Darwinian theory be treated as fact. Leftist control of the schools advances their goal.
The Rights hatred of Marxism and love of religion demands that Darwinian theory be discredited. The Right wants control of the schools to advances their ideological goals.

Judging by the alacrity that brought you here to defend Marxism.....Darwin......I do know more about evolution than you.




When will you either provide the books that informed your geopolitical insight, or admit you've never read any?

For someone who claims never to lie, you sure seem hell bent on avoiding the truth:

• I came here to support science not defend Marxist politics, which I did not do.
• I already provided your list but since it made no impression, let's just say when it comes to geopolitical insight, I'm self-taught.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It is established science that we came from a common ancestor."


Now....how could that be possible....provide the scientific journal and/or paper that provides such proof, or simply change your avi to 'Imbecile.'


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.

Proofs are only in math. Science depends on evidence.

a. Molecular biology, a knowledge of DNA, inveighs against Darwin's ideas
No it doesn't, in fact:
The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

b. Mathematics makes Darwin's view improbable
If you understood math and evolution you'd know is it untrue. ToE is certainly it is less improbable than creationism.

c. 180 years of experiments have come up with zero successful experiments at producing a new species.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

d. Breeders have known for centuries that random changes, more often than not, rebound to the original form.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

e. Marxism's struggle with religion demands that Darwinian theory be treated as fact. Leftist control of the schools advances their goal.
The Rights hatred of Marxism and love of religion demands that Darwinian theory be discredited. The Right wants control of the schools to advances their ideological goals.

Judging by the alacrity that brought you here to defend Marxism.....Darwin......I do know more about evolution than you.




When will you either provide the books that informed your geopolitical insight, or admit you've never read any?

For someone who claims never to lie, you sure seem hell bent on avoiding the truth:

• I came here to support science not defend Marxist politics, which I did not do.
• I already provided your list but since it made no impression, let's just say when it comes to geopolitical insight, I'm self-taught.

"I came here to support science not defend Marxist politics, which I did not do."

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.


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.

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology

It also covers the idea that each of us has a purpose, a meaning in living.
It is the very opposite of nihilism, secularism.

b. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.” Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary




You're simply not bright enough to understand what you have been tricked into defending.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It is established science that we came from a common ancestor."


Now....how could that be possible....provide the scientific journal and/or paper that provides such proof, or simply change your avi to 'Imbecile.'


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.

Proofs are only in math. Science depends on evidence.

a. Molecular biology, a knowledge of DNA, inveighs against Darwin's ideas
No it doesn't, in fact:
The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

b. Mathematics makes Darwin's view improbable
If you understood math and evolution you'd know is it untrue. ToE is certainly it is less improbable than creationism.

c. 180 years of experiments have come up with zero successful experiments at producing a new species.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

d. Breeders have known for centuries that random changes, more often than not, rebound to the original form.
If you understood evolution this would not surprise you.

e. Marxism's struggle with religion demands that Darwinian theory be treated as fact. Leftist control of the schools advances their goal.
The Rights hatred of Marxism and love of religion demands that Darwinian theory be discredited. The Right wants control of the schools to advances their ideological goals.

Judging by the alacrity that brought you here to defend Marxism.....Darwin......I do know more about evolution than you.




When will you either provide the books that informed your geopolitical insight, or admit you've never read any?

For someone who claims never to lie, you sure seem hell bent on avoiding the truth:

• I came here to support science not defend Marxist politics, which I did not do.
• I already provided your list but since it made no impression, let's just say when it comes to geopolitical insight, I'm self-taught.

"I already provided your list but since it made no impression, let's just say when it comes to geopolitical insight, I'm self-taught."

a. you did no such thing.

b. "when it comes to geopolitical insight, I'm self-taught."
And a perfect example of the flaw in the results of a computer search....'garbage in-garbage out.'


I'm certain a nice adult would show you how to obtain a library card.

 

[alang1216]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

 

[alang1216]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

Didn't you claim you could produce facts?


"... facts, however inconvenient those facts."



Not only haven't you done so....but you've simply lied.

"Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree."

I produced scientific results proving organisms sprang, fully formed, complex organism, without precursors.
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?????


Don't EVER say you know more about evolution than I.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

"Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world."


Nay, nay, fool.....


....it's the second best.

 

[alang1216]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

Didn't you claim you could produce facts?


"... facts, however inconvenient those facts."



Not only haven't you done so....but you've simply lied.

"Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree."

I produced scientific results proving organisms sprang, fully formed, complex organism, without precursors.
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?????


Don't EVER say you know more about evolution than I.

The vast majority of scientist disagree with you, there are even Christians that doubt your theory:

The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record—often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors.
​

You might not want to turn to a computer scientist for evolutionary guidance. David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin

 

[alang1216]

"Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world."

Nay, nay, fool.....

....it's the second best.

Biblical creationism, ID, Prometheus, Brahma, ...?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinian theory is the greatest defense Marx has, and his greatest weapon against religion.

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

Didn't you claim you could produce facts?


"... facts, however inconvenient those facts."



Not only haven't you done so....but you've simply lied.

"Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree."

I produced scientific results proving organisms sprang, fully formed, complex organism, without precursors.
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?????


Don't EVER say you know more about evolution than I.

The vast majority of scientist disagree with you, there are even Christians that doubt your theory:

The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record—often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors.
​

You might not want to turn to a computer scientist for evolutionary guidance. David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin

Why is it that imbeciles keep claiming that scientific fact is decided by hand counts?????



Another lesson you didn't learn in junior high school.

OK, OK....stop begging: I'll explain science to you:


Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



Did you find 'concensus' in there, dunce?????

 

[alang1216]

That may be true but ideology doesn't trump the facts, however inconvenient those facts. Would you want to ban all guns because they are sometimes used by criminals?

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

Didn't you claim you could produce facts?


"... facts, however inconvenient those facts."



Not only haven't you done so....but you've simply lied.

"Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree."

I produced scientific results proving organisms sprang, fully formed, complex organism, without precursors.
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?????


Don't EVER say you know more about evolution than I.

The vast majority of scientist disagree with you, there are even Christians that doubt your theory:

The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record—often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors.
​

You might not want to turn to a computer scientist for evolutionary guidance. David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin

Why is it that imbeciles keep claiming that scientific fact is decided by hand counts?????



Another lesson you didn't learn in junior high school.

OK, OK....stop begging: I'll explain science to you:


Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



Did you find 'concensus' in there, dunce?????

You needed to dig deeper, you must have missed it:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]​

Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.​

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]​

 

[PoliticalChic]

What 'facts'????

There are no facts supporting Darwin's theory....as you will prove right now by being unable to provide any.

Darwin actually had 2 theories. One was that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A second one was a mechanism for that evolution, natural selection. The first is undoubtedly a fact. Geology and biology both show it.

Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the life we find in the natural world. Like Newtonian gravity it will likely prove to be a simplification of the process but that doesn't make it wrong.

You're not stupid, if you got your scientific information from scientists and not politicians you'd agree.

Didn't you claim you could produce facts?


"... facts, however inconvenient those facts."



Not only haven't you done so....but you've simply lied.

"Of the trillions of fossils we have found, not a single one violates the theory of descent from a common ancestor. There may be seriou gaps in the fossil record but those fossils we have found support it unconditionally. The vast majority of scientists in the field would agree."

I produced scientific results proving organisms sprang, fully formed, complex organism, without precursors.
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?????


Don't EVER say you know more about evolution than I.

The vast majority of scientist disagree with you, there are even Christians that doubt your theory:

The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record—often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors.
​

You might not want to turn to a computer scientist for evolutionary guidance. David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin

Why is it that imbeciles keep claiming that scientific fact is decided by hand counts?????



Another lesson you didn't learn in junior high school.

OK, OK....stop begging: I'll explain science to you:


Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



Did you find 'concensus' in there, dunce?????

You needed to dig deeper, you must have missed it:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]​

Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.​

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]​

OMG.


Any 'science' based on consensus is not science, it's politics.

Any evolution or global warming that agrees with you is due to the influence of neo-Marxism, and the only way to get grants.

Peer review????

Gads, you're gullible.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.

Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.

An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.

In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.

Attention focused on a researcher named Peter Chen of the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan and “possibly other authors at this institution.”

After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.

The statement does not explain how something like this happens."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...etracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/

 

[alang1216]

OMG.

Any 'science' based on consensus is not science, it's politics.

Any evolution or global warming that agrees with you is due to the influence of neo-Marxism, and the only way to get grants.

Peer review????

Gads, you're gullible.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’

I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you. Thankfully not everyone feels that way.

If you read about a banker embezzling from his bank would you say all banks are corrupted? Scientists are only human.