Destroying Darwin

[cnm]

From the OP:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.

Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.

Which 'Darwinists' defend that precise passage? From what I see various forms of life are considered to have existed around or before the common ancestor.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So 'Darwin has already been destroyed'.

BFD


.

 

[Hollie]

So Darwin got some things wrong. As if anyone cares particularly. Criticising him for the things he got wrong with the knowledge he had at the time is pointless. So what. How uninspiring does someone have to be to make a point of doing so?

That's the difference between science and fundie superstition. Scientists are willing to update and change as more information becomes available.

And we are willing to believe god exists as soon as we are given some evidence.

Why do you keep trying to bring religion into a scientific discussion?

At a loss, huh?

Harun Yahya'ism is not science.

Why do you cut and paste from christian fundamentalist ministries such as the Disco'tute and falsely try to represent that as something other than nonsense?

 

[sealybobo]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"


The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...



7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be

a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and

b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...

..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!

If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.




8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution




9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.

More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.


In this game....two strikes and you're out.

 

[cnm]

How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.

 

[sealybobo]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"


The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...



7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be

a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and

b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...

..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!

If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.




8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution




9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.

More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.


In this game....two strikes and you're out.

So something can come from nothing? Sudden new organisms are just popping up out of nowhere? Cool. I'm open to that. The big bang may not be true either. I'm open to all possibilities.

 

[Hollie]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"


The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...



7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be

a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and

b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...

..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!

If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.




8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution




9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.

More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.


In this game....two strikes and you're out.

In the twisted mind of christian fundies, Harun Yahya is viewed as authoritative.

 

[Moonglow]

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"


The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...



7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be

a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and

b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...

..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!

If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.




8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution




9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.

More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.


In this game....two strikes and you're out.

In the twisted mind of christian fundies, Harun Yahya is viewed as authoritative.

The rest think of him as a charlatan...

 

[Moonglow]

Let's face it..We do not know our true origin.................................or the galaxies. That is the truth of the matter.. All ideas about it are just theories....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.

Because that's all those hostile to the facts have.

 

[sealybobo]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"


The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...



7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be

a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and

b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...

..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!

If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.




8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution




9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.

More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.


In this game....two strikes and you're out.

This is the scientific method.

Even in the cosmos they explain how many great discoveries took years to make it to scientific consensus. Sucks but that's the scientific method. Slow beurocratic etc. But maybe this guy is right.

 

[sealybobo]

How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.

Because that's all those hostile to the facts have.

Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.

 

[cnm]

Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.

Really it means that little flaws or inconsistencies in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions will not make the theory of evolution go away. I mean according to PolitcalChic's assertion Darwin is already destroyed as his 'pillar' statement is held to be false according to current knowledge.

BFD.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's face it..We do not know our true origin.................................or the galaxies. That is the truth of the matter.. All ideas about it are just theories....

So true. Different bacteria in different climates could have independently developed in different parts of the planet. The mold that eventually turned into fish or reptiles might be different than the mold that turned into mammals.

I know one thing. On a molecular level we are all very similar.

But we know with DNA that blacks whites escemos asians Arabs are all related.

I suspect evolution is a better theory than mine. Lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.

"How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn."

Because you're a fool.

Darwinism is taught throughout the nation at just about every level.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



This just isn't your day, is it.

What's the problem with what Darwin said?

Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.

And so even religion has evolved. Lol

"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"


The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...



7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be

a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and

b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...

..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!

If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.




8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution




9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.

More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.


In this game....two strikes and you're out.

So something can come from nothing? Sudden new organisms are just popping up out of nowhere? Cool. I'm open to that. The big bang may not be true either. I'm open to all possibilities.

So you're no longer a supporter of Darwinian evolution?

Great.

 

[Moonglow]

How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.

"How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn."

Because you're a fool.

Darwinism is taught throughout the nation at just about every level.

Well they aren't going to waste time teaching the theory of creationism from every religion..

 

[Hollie]

How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.

"How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn."

Because you're a fool.

Darwinism is taught throughout the nation at just about every level.

It won't be replaced with Jerry Falwell'ism.

Make a personal statement and drink the Kool-Aid

 

[sealybobo]

Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.

Really it means that little flaws or inconsistencies in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions will not make the theory of evolution go away. I mean according to PolitcalChic's assertion Darwin is already destroyed as his 'pillar' statement is held to be false according to current knowledge.

BFD.

I doubt his findings have passed sciences peer review. If it does we will hear about it from someone other than politichick. Lol. Their shit never pans out but we have to remain open.

And just like Darwin doesnt disprove god, her finding dont prove god. That's impossible because he really doesnt exist.

 

[Moonglow]

Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.

Really it means that little flaws or inconsistencies in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions will not make the theory of evolution go away. I mean according to PolitcalChic's assertion Darwin is already destroyed as his 'pillar' statement is held to be false according to current knowledge.

BFD.

I doubt his findings have passed sciences peer review. If it does we will hear about it from someone other than politichick. Lol. Their shit never pans out but we have to remain open.

And just like Darwin doesnt disprove god, her finding dont prove god. That's impossible because he really doesnt exist.

She is concerned with empirical evidence to back a theory, yet creationist have no empirical evidence for the existence of God and where he hid Heaven...and Hell...