Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1."your motives aren't scientific."
Let's dispense with any notion that your inclinations have anything to do with science.
My 'motives,' whatever you imagine them to be, have nothing to do with the facts and questions posed by the OP.
In reality you are merely seeking to obfuscate the fact that you have no answers for same.
You've danced around the questions and attempted to make the argument about me.
Let's be honest: you're a dope.
2. "You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too."
Another fib....with the same purpose as exposed above.
And to prove it....my 'agenda' is right there in the title....you know, the words that inflamed you.
AND...the reason they inflamed you is that you believe in Darwinism...yet can't defend it.
3. "Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.;..."
First, I have never mentioned my degree...
...second, M.D., in your case, clearly stands for Mundane Drivel.
4. "...your opinion on my understanding of science."
Hardly my opinion....I'll prove it. I'll put up post with the four questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.
Read post 32 if you dare.....and quake in your shoes.
To be clear, you aren't making any novel arguments against evolution. You are tossing out the same academically dishonest crap that creationists (or proponents of intelligent design) often toss out to try and muddy the waters.
As you have no background in the natural sciences, I could understand how an ordinary person could be confused by all of these items. However, you are intelligent enough to know exactly what you are doing. Watching you be intentionally obtuse is not terribly inspiring or interesting to those of us who know better.
As an aside, when did you become so easily flustered? Perhaps you are experiencing some cognitive decline as you progress into the golden years?
lets take a look at how many missing links have been proven to be not missing links at all.
I'm about to destroy you....
Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.
1. Darwin's theor "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.
Punctuated Equilibrium also claim that "changes are sudden, spontaneous".
Nature. 1993 Nov 18;366(6452):223-7.
Punctuated equilibrium comes of age.
Gould SJ, Eldredge N.
Author information
Abstract
The intense controversies that surrounded the youth of punctuated equilibrium have helped it mature to a useful extension of evolutionary theory. As a complement to phyletic gradualism, its most important implications remain the recognition of stasis as a meaningful and predominant pattern within the history of species, and in the recasting of macroevolution as the differential success of certain species (and their descendants) within clades.
PMID: 8232582 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?
2. Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!
Yet...numbskulls ignore the sudden appearances. Where is their explanation?
there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.
Science. 1959 Dec 11;130(3389):1622-4.
Origin of Life.
Miller SL, Urey HC.
PMID: 17781381 [PubMed]
And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous."
Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?
remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.
the opportunity to support Darwinism....and you use the phrase "intentionally obtuse".......
I'm about to destroy you....
Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.
.............
1. Darwin's theor "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.
"Equilibrium"
Punctuated Equilibrium is not the "opposite" of Natural Selection (Darwin's contribution to Evolutionary Biology).
Not quite.
Perhaps you should read the peer reviewed works of the original source as opposed to relying on someone from a pro-creationsit websight to do your academic legwork for you...
Provided for your edification:
They understand that the theories don't contradict themselves.
I don't really understand your point. You are upset because the change is not gradual enough? What kind of time frame are you operating off of? If sudden speciation invalidates natural selection, what kind of time frame should we see that would support Darwin's model? What, a novel species ever 1 billion years? Every 1 million years?
You need to do a little more work on your end of the argument if you are going to argue that these theories invalidate natural selection.
Let me just refer you to the following little-known Nobel Prize winning work from 60+ years ago.
And frequently are. This is why we have cancer.
While you castigate us for pointing out that your objections to evolution are religiously based. I would re-refer you to the source that YOU provided to support your argument.
Did you think we would be too lame to click on your own link?
It would be nice if your "source" had a lead author to attribute its rather large claims too. Otherwise, it just reads like an opinion piece.
Which it is.
You can read a molecular biology textbook for a more in-depth explanation of mutation if you are truly interested.
remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
No they don't.
Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.
"This is just too complicated to have happened on its own" is the battle cry on the intellectually dull.
If you were really interested in seeking answers to these very basic questions there are mountains of text books, papers and online resources to assist you.
However, you obviously aren't interested in honesty. If you were, you wouldn't resort to using an obviously biased source.
You can sit here and amaze the dullards with a bunch of half-assed arguments wrapped in a Master's Degree lexicon.
For everyone else, your arguments can be reduced to the usual creationist mantra: "This is just too complicated to have happened without the help of a supernatural force."
So in summary, you have a major problem in accepting the "numbers of evolution" which are probabilities in the orders of the millions and trillions. However, you have no problem accepting that some omnipotent force made all of this happen with the wave of a hand.
the opportunity to support Darwinism....and you use the phrase "intentionally obtuse".......
What is Darwinism?
Darwin had no concept of DNA when he published. In fact, his concept of how genetic material was passed on to new generations was pretty laughable.
As it stands, are you using the phrase "Darwinism" as a pejorative slur or are you implying that we all have to accept Darwin's "Origin of Species" ver batum?
Darwin's theory is unproven.
Again.
I am not interested in your opinion as you are a lay person.
You need to so some actual work on your end if you want to support the claims that you are making.
Darwin's theory is unproven.
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't have a complete grasp on the discipline you are arguing.
Again.
I am not interested in your opinion as you are a lay person.
You need to so some actual work on your end if you want to support the claims that you are making.
I just ripped you to shreds....and your attempt is to make this about me?
What a joke.
Too bad you never learned any science.
Darwin's theory is unproven.
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't have a complete grasp on the discipline you are arguing.
Ready?
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
In your face, boy.
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't have a complete grasp on the discipline you are arguing.
Ready?
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.
Ready?
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.
Two facts are pertinent here:
1. Kenyon is correct
2. You're a revealed liar.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.
Two facts are pertinent here:
1. Kenyon is correct
2. You're a revealed liar.
Proving yet again that 'lying for Jesus' is the new norm.
Two facts are pertinent here:
1. Kenyon is correct
2. You're a revealed liar.
Proving yet again that 'lying for Jesus' is the new norm.
As you are the only documented liar around here, does your post mean that you've found religion?
Congrats.
Ready?
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.
Two facts are pertinent here:
1. Kenyon is correct
2. You're a revealed liar.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.
Two facts are pertinent here:
1. Kenyon is correct
2. You're a revealed liar.
1. Define species.
1a. Explain ring species.
